Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]

PRIVATE BUSINESS

SANDOWN-SHANKLIN URBAN DISTRICT COUNCIL BILL

As amended, considered; to be read the Third time.

CORN EXCHANGE BILL [Lords]

Read a Second time and committed.

Oral Answers to Questions — COAL

Supplies, Coventry

Miss Burton: asked the Minister of Fuel and Power whether he is aware of public disquiet in Coventry at the shortage of coal; and what steps he is taking to deal with the situation.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Fuel and Power (Mr. L. W. Joynson-Hicks): I am making inquiries and will write to the hon. Lady as soon as possible.

Miss Burton: Will the Minister try to find out whether this long delay in coal deliveries in Coventry is due to the shortage of staff in coal merchants' offices, or whether it is due to maldistribution?

Mr. Joynson-Hicks: I have no doubt that the shortage of staff in the coal merchant' offices has something to do with it, but I think that in addition there' are special circumstances in the hon. Lady's constituency, which draws most of its coal from the Warwickshire coalfield, and production in that coalfield has been particularly bad this year.

Mr. T. Brown: is the Minister satisfied with the distributive side of coal supplies? My experience is that the hold-up is on the distributive side and that it is this which is causing great anxiety. Would

the Minister care to inquire into the distributive sector of the industry? I know it is in private hands, but nevertheless it ought to be able to supply coal to people when they need it, in view of the output.

Mr. Joynson-Hicks: The hon. Gentleman is quite right in saying that a lot of difficulty has Iain during the cold weather on the distributive side, as the merchants have had great difficulty in meeting the demands. One of the causes is that, owing to full employment, there is no casual labour available at the employment exchanges to supplement the efforts of the coal porters.

Mr. Nabarro: Is not the answer to this question to import the small additional quantity of coal that is wanted, namely, 2 million tons, in order to end this wretched system of house coal rationing.

Mr. Joynson-Hicks: I think we have some Questions dealing with coal imports later on the Order Paper.

Pitheaps

Mr. Warbey: asked the Minister of Fuel and Power whether he will give a general direction to the National Coal Board to avoid siting new coal dirt disposal tips in positions which are injurious to local amenities.

Mr. Joynson-Hicks: The siting of pit-heaps is the responsibility of the local planning authorities under the Town and Country Planning Acts, and it would not be appropriate for my right hon. Friend to intervene.

Mr. Warbey: Is the Minister aware that the Turner Committee called attention to this question, and that there has been a great volume of public protest in Eastwood against the proposal to site a tip in the town's only available parkland and open space? Is it not time that the Ministry devoted its attention to this whole question of the siting of these noxious and unsightly tips on a national basis in conjunction with the Coal Board?

Mr. Joynson-Hicks: The matter is governed by statutory enactments, and Parliament has already decided that it is a question for the local authorities under the Town and Country Planning Acts.

Imports

Mr. Nabarro: asked the Minister of Fuel and Power how much coal was imported in the 12 months to 31st March, 1955; how much came from United States and Canadian sources, and how much from elsewhere; and what were the relevant percentages.

Mr. Joynson-Hicks: Figures up to 31st March are not yet available, but for the 12 months ended 28th February, 1955, 4,235,000 tons of coal were imported, of which 935,000 tons were from the United States and Canada and 3,300,000 tons from other sources. The respective percentages were 22 and 78.

Mr. Nabarro: Is it not a fact that the import of this very large tonnage of coal from North American sources has again this year, as in previous years, led to a very considerable derangement of North American ocean freights? In those circumstances, cannot we avail ourselves more readily of surpluses of similar coals which exist in soft currency sources in Europe, both east and west of the Iron Curtain, and diminish the supplies from North America?

Mr. Joynson-Hicks: Currency considerations are amongst those affecting this question from whence coal is imported, but there are other questions such as the availability of required grades, prices and shipping facilities. There is an advantage in being able to bring in coal in big trans-Atlantic ships.

Mr. H. Hynd: Does the hon. Gentleman remember what his hon. Friend the Member for Kidderminster (Mr. Nabarro) said when the Labour Government imported a much smaller quantity of coal than this?

Mr. Joynson-Hicks: Yes, certainly, but production, under the Conservative Government, has increased so much since then that much more coal is needed.

Mr. Nabarro: asked the Minister of Fuel and Power, in consideration of our coal import needs reaching a figure of 10 million tons during the year commencing 1st April, 1955, what steps he is taking to assure foreign supplies.

Mr. W. Steward: asked the Minister of Fuel and Power whether he is yet in a position to estimate the amount of

coal it will be necessary to import in the current coal year to sustain industrial and domestic supplies; and whether he will make a statement.

Mr. Joynson-Hicks: It is as yet too early to estimate the amount required to be imported during the next 12 months, but my right hon. Friend has no reason to think that the National Coal Board, who arrange the purchase and importation of coal in accordance with programmes agreed with the Government, will be unable to obtain the quantities necessary to supplement home output.

Mr. Nabarro: Does my hon. Friend's reply mean that he assumes that coal production in the United Kingdom is not going to rise during the next 12 months, and that, therefore, this figure of 10 million tons of imports will indeed be required before March, 1956?

Mr. Joynson-Hicks: I do not think my answer indicated that I was not anticipating an increase in coal production. I should not like to prophesy or publish any estimate of what imports will be necessary over the next 12 months for fear of prejudicing the Board's commercial negotiations.

Lieut.-Colonel Lipton: Could not all these expensive complications so ardently desired by the hon. Member for Kidderminster (Mr. Nabarro) be avoided if we stopped exporting coal that we need in this country?

Mr. Joynson-Hicks: My right hon. Friend has answered the hon. and gallant Gentleman with regard to coal exports a number of times.

Mr. Palmer: asked the Minister of Fuel and Power the approximate value in pounds sterling of coal imported and coal exported into and from the United Kingdom during the 12 months ended 31st March, 1955.

Mr. Joynson-Hicks: In the 12 months ended 28th February the c.i.f. value of coal imports was £24 million and the f.o.b. value of coal exports £58 million.

Household Coal

Mr. Nabarro: asked the Minister of Fuel and Power how much house coal was burned in 12 months to 31st March, 1955; and what estimate he has made of


unrationed house-coal demand for 12 months commencing 1st April, 1955.

Mr. Joynson-Hicks: 30½ million tons were sold to householders. I estimate that about 32½ million tons per annum might now be required if house coal were derestricted.

Mr. Nabarro: As the fact is now revealed that only 2 million tons of additional house coal costing approximately £12 million, all available from soft currency sources, is all that is required to deration house coal, could not my hon. Friend arrange that, and also arrange to import, say, £12 million worth less of soft fruit from Western European sources, thereby helping the Worcestershire fruit growers?

Mr. Joynson-Hicks: My right hon. Friend is not responsible for importing soft fruit. With regard to the other aspect of the question, that is a matter which depends on the currency payments situation, and my hon. Friend should address his question to the Chancellor of the Exchequer.

Opencast Site, Prescot

Mr. H. Wilson: asked the Minister of Fuel and Power what estimate he made of the total cost of operating the opencast coal site on the ground of the Prescot Cricket Club, Lancashire, before approving the order for requisitioning the site; and what estimate he made of the tonnage of coal to be extracted.

Mr. Joynson-Hicks: The cost of operating opencast coal sites is a matter for the National Coal Board. The estimated extraction in this case was 150,000 tons.

Mr. Wilson: Now that all this operation has concluded, can the hon. Gentleman say whether his estimate has been realised? In the light of the results achieved in the last year or two, would he say whether they justified all the disturbance that was caused?

Mr. Joynson-Hicks: The answer to the latter part of the supplementary question is, "Yes." In regard to the estimate, the right hon. Gentleman will recall that the original estimate was substantially reduced owing to the reduction in the size of the site for the preservation of the bowling green, tennis courts and pavilion.
The amount actually extracted is within reasonable distance of the adjusted anticipated amount.

Distribution

Major Anstruther-Gray: asked the Minister of Fuel and Power what steps he is taking to obviate in the future the inconvenience caused by failures in the distribution of household coal in recent months.

Mr. Joynson-Hicks: My right hon. Friend fully realises the inconvenience referred to, which arises from a variety of causes, of which the shortage of coal is only one. Householders and merchants can themselves do much to obviate the difficulties in distribution, which are always liable to occur in a long spell of cold weather, by purchasing and stocking wherever possible as much coal as they can in the summer and autumn.

Major Anstruther-Gray: Does my hon. Friend propose to reintroduce the summer prices scheme, perhaps on more attractive terms than heretofore?

Mr. Joynson-Hicks: Yes, it is intended to introduce the summer prices scheme again this year, and I hope that it will be an incentive to people to stock up as much as possible during the summer.

Mr. Gibson: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that for tens of thousands of householders in London it is quite impossible to stock up as they cannot get more than about 2 cwt. into their bins? Will he ask his right hon. Friend to be a little less complacent about this matter and to do something to get much bigger stocks in the London area?

Mr. Joynson-Hicks: My right hon. Friend is not at all complacent about this, and it is in order to assist people such as those to whom the hon. Gentleman refers that we want people who can to stock up as much as possible to help the distributors to get the coal out in bad weather to the hon. Gentleman's constituents and others.

Mr. Shurmer: Will the hon. Gentleman see that his right hon. Friend not only gets sufficient coal to the people who can stock it but gets coal stocked at the wharves ready to meet emergencies, so as to avoid the position we had during the


last winter when many people could not get coal at all because it went to people who were able to stock it and there were no stocks at the wharves?

Mr. Joynson-Hicks: My original reply contained an appeal to the householders and also to the merchants to stock up.

Shipments (Flag Discrimination)

Captain Ryder: asked the Minister of Fuel and Power if he will now give an undertaking to refuse his approval for the shipment of coal to this country under circumstances which condone the principle of flag discrimination.

Mr. Joynson-Hicks: No coal bought for import into this country in the normal way of trade is or will be subject to flag discrimination, but Her Majesty's Government have always recognised that one of the conditions of the receipt of United States aid is that 50 per cent. of any goods imported from the United States which represent aid must be moved in United States ships.

Captain Ryder: Are we receiving any coal under Marshall Aid, or are we to understand that in future there will be no further flag discrimination of this type?

Mr. Joynson-Hicks: I should not like to speak with regard to the future, but I think that it is correct to say that at the moment we are not receiving any coal under Marshall Aid.

Oral Answers to Questions — MINISTRY OF FOOD

Colouring Substances

Mr. Dodds: asked the Minister of Food if he will now take action to ban the colouring of kippers with coal-tar dyes and encourage a return to the practice of producing the appetising appearance and health-giving properties by smoking instead of painting.

The Minister of Food (Mr. Heathcoat Amory): The addition to food of colouring matters including coal-tar dyes has been the subject of a recently published report by the Food Standards Committee. Consideration is now being given to representations from interested parties with a view to a decision on the Committee's recommendations.

Mr. Dodds: Does that answer apply to this Question or to my next Question; and whether it does or does not, can the right hon. Gentleman give a categorical denial that the dyeing of kippers is harmful to health?

Mr. Amory: My intervention must be limited to that, to harmful effects. I am anxious to consider the recommendations and representations made in connection with this before I reach a decision,

Mr. Beresford Craddock: Is is not a fact that kippers have been dyed with basic dyestuffs for many years and that research has shown that there is no harmful effect?

Mr. Edward Evans: Does not the right hon. Gentleman agree that the question of the "painted ladies" is among the least of the anxieties of the herring industry, which has much more difficult problems to surmount?

Mr. Amory: I am very anxious to try to surmount them all.

Mr. Dodds: asked the Minister of Food what has been the response of producers and manufacturers to his invitation to give their point of view in respect to the proposal to ban colouring substances in foods, as recommended by the preservatives sub-committee of the Food Standards Committee.

Dr. Broughton: asked the Minister of Food what comments he has now received from the catering industry, from manufacturers of colouring materials used in food, or from other interested bodies, on the report of the Preservatives Sub-Committee of the Food Standards Committee concerning the preparation of an approved list of substances which may be added to food.

Mr. Amory: The comments received to date relate for the most part to points of detail concerning the recommended colours. Some objections have also been lodged against the principle of a restricted list of colours for use in food.

Mr. Dodds: What is the Minister going to do about this? What sort of recommendations has he received from the trade? Is he going to do anything about them?

Mr. Amory: Yes, I thought I had indicated that we allowed a period for anyone to make representations, who desired to do so—

Mr. Dodds: To 31st March.

Mr. Amory: Yes, to 31st March. That period is now over, and I am actively considering what action is required.

Dr. Broughton: Will the Minister look upon this matter as one of some urgency in view of the statements that were made in the report, and will he make sure that coal-tar derivatives used in colouring foods will be prohibited in the near future?

Mr. Amory: I agree with the hon. Gentleman that this is an important matter. I will take into consideration what he has mentioned, and I can assure him that there will be no avoidable delay in taking action.

Mr. Hector Hughes: Having regard to the unique methods used by the Aberdeen kipperer, would it not he a good idea to send a body of experts or a delegation to Aberdeen to study the methods used there in order to have a proper appreciation of the position?

Mr. Amory: I regard the hon. and learned Gentleman as an expert himself in these matters, and I shall rely upon his advice.

Meat Inspection (Local Authority Expenditure)

Mr. H. Hynd: asked the Minister of Food whether he is yet in a position to issue regulations providing for charges to be made by a local authority for the inspection of meat; or whether he will allow local authorities to adopt bye-laws in respect of private slaughterhouses.

Mr. Amory: This is proving a more difficult problem than I had expected. It is part of the general problem of the siting of slaughterhouses which is being examined by the Interdepartmental Committee. I can assure the hon. Member that I am giving the matter close attention.

Mr. Hynd: Will the Minister bear in mind that it was last November that I first mentioned this matter, that all the

time this delay is going on local authorities are carrying pretty heavy expenditure in having to pay extra fees to their officials while private slaughterhouses are carrying on Sunday slaughtering?

Mr. Amory: I do not dissent from what the hon. Gentleman has said, but my object is to try and arrive at a proper inspection of meat. I am anxious to try to find means of doing that, and to ensure the greatest agreement between all the parties concerned.

Shops (Over-weight Charges)

Miss Burton: asked the Minister of Food whether he is aware of the public annoyance at the growing practice among some shopkeepers of giving small overweight on purchases and then charging excessive prices for this, and that it is difficult for customers to reckon the correct additional charge on the spot; and whether he will hold an inquiry into the matter, with a view to introducing legislation.

Mr. Amory: The hon. Lady seems to underestimate the good sense of the housewife, the honesty of traders generally and the wholesome effect of competition. I do not think a special inquiry is called for.

Miss Burton: Is the Minister aware that his statement shows that he is completely removed from reality? Is he furthermore aware that I have received several letters, particularly from old-age pensioners, to say that it is very difficult for them when they have asked for a pound of bananas and the shopkeeper says that it is an ounce or so over and then charges another 3d. or 4d.? Is he also aware that they have no redress in the matter at all, and, instead of being humorous, will the Minister deal with the matter seriously?

Mr. Amory: I hope the hon. Lady will acquit me of any intention of being humorous on this matter, but I think the remedy lies in the hands of the housewife who, if she is dissatisfied or has been treated unreasonably, can change her shopkeeper.

Mr. Anthony Greenwood: Would the Minister not agree that the real solution to this problem is to shop at the "Coop."?

White Pepper

Miss Burton: asked the Minister of Food whether he is aware that white pepper imported at 4s. a lb. is sold to the public at 1s. an ounce and, as this represents a profit of 300 per cent., if he will impose price control on this commodity.

Mr. Amory: I understand that good quality white pepper can be bought at prices ranging from 6d. to 8d. an ounce. I do not propose to reintroduce price control.

Miss Burton: Is the Minister aware that the price of good quality white pepper ranges from 9d. to 1s. 1d., which gives an average price of 11d., and that if the shopkeepers charge 6d. an ounce, that gives them a profit of 50 per cent. on top of processing costs? Is he not therefore prepared to condemn the very high prices charged?

Mr. Amory: I still stick to the figures I gave, namely, that white pepper is obtainable between 6d. and 8d. an ounce. If the hon. Lady is not satisfied with her supplier, I hope she will exercise her option and change her supplier. May I further add that I think the hon. Lady has forgotten the cost of milling and refining.

Mr. K. Thompson: Is not the answer to all this trouble about the use of white pepper to shop at the "Co-op"?

Fatstock (Guarantee Payments)

Mr. Bullard: asked the Minister of Food how long it now takes to pay the sums due to producers under the guarantees for fatstock; and how the delay between a sale and the payment of the guarantees compares with that of July last.

Mr. Amory: The average time taken to pay producers selling by auction is now 11 days from receipt of the payment certificate, compared with 21 days last July. The comparable figures for grade and deadweight sales are 17 days and 28 days, respectively, and for sales to bacon factories five days and 16 days.

Old-Age Pensioners

Mr. Willey: asked the Minister of Food (1) whether he will make available the evidence provided by the

National Food Survey that old-age pensioners in 1954 ate 50 per cent. more eggs than in 1951;
(2) how the consumption of eggs by old-age pensioners in 1954 compared with that in 1950.

Mr. Amory: The average consumption by old-age pensioners according to the National Food Survey was 3·0 eggs per head per week in 1950, 2·3 in 1951 and 3·4 in 1954.

Mr. Willey: Does the right hon. Gentleman not agree that the consumption of eggs in 1950 was substantially higher overall than in 1954, and is it not quite offensive to the old-age pensioners in those circumstances to say that they are eating very much more than they were in 1950?

Mr. Amory: All the figures I have quoted are based on the National Food Survey, which, after all, is a statistical inquiry which has been used by both Governments. I do not really feel that the hon. Gentleman should try to query figures because they are not figures which are congenial to him.

Mr. Willey: In view of the fact that the right hon. Gentleman does not challenge the fact that I have stated, namely, that consumption overall was much higher in 1950 than in 1954, will he publish the full evidence on which this remarkable conclusion is based?

Mr. Amory: The National Food Survey will be published in due course.

Mr. Nabarro: Is it not a fact that the real difference is that the eggs are now fresh, whereas formerly under the administration of the hon. Member opposite they were exceedingly "squiffy"?

Mr. Willey: In view of the Minister's statement, I beg to give notice that at the appropriate time I will raise this matter on the Adjournment.

Captain Pilkington: asked the Minister of Food what evidence he has from the National Food Survey to show that old-age pensioners are eating more or less than they did in 1951.

Mr. Amory: The evidence is that old-age pensioners ate more food in 1954 than in 1951, and that their diet as a whole was more nutritious. As the evidence


consists of a number of figures, I will, with permission, circulate a statement in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Captain Pilkington: Has my right hon. Friend made any calculation as to how much better off old-age pensioners will be when the new pensions come into force?

Mr. Warbey: Can the Minister say whether the survey showed what sacrifices the old people are making in clothing, household necessities and personal comforts in order to pay the high food prices demanded?

Mr. Amory: If the hon. Gentleman turns to the cost of living figures, he will find that the standard of living has not suffered.

Following is the information:


ESTIMATED FOOD CONSUMPTION OF OLD-AGE PENSIONER HOUSEHOLDS (OZ. PER HEAD PER WEEK UNLESS OTHERWISE STATED)


—
1951 (a)
1954 (provisional)


Milk, including processed (pt. or equiv. pt.)
4·9
4·9


Cheese, including unrationed
2·7
3·1


Eggs (number)
2·3
3·4


Butter
4·0
4·4


Margarine
3·8
4·5


Meat (including bacon and unrationed meat)
25·7
31·6


Sugar
11·1
18·0


Tea
2·8
3·6


Calories (per head per day)
2,264
2,530


(a) Excluding two months, March and June, for which information is not available.

Pigmeat

Mr. Vane: asked the Minister of Food what proportion of the total pigmeat consumed in this country during 1954, or other recent convenient period of 12 months, was home-produced and what proportion was imported from the Commonwealth, Denmark or Poland, respectively; and what change he expects that there will be in these proportions during the current year.

Mr. Amory: In 1954 about 62 per cent. was home-produced, 1 per cent. was imported from the Commonwealth, 25 per cent. from Denmark and 5 per cent. from

Poland. I see no reason for expecting any substantial change in these proportions during 1955.

Mr. Vane: Can my hon. Friend say whether it is a fair assumption that the small proportion imported from Poland could not possibly have any effect on the market either on demand or on price?

Mr. Amory: I certainly do not think it is a factor that would influence price very much.

Controls

Captain Pilkington: asked the Minister of Food how many foods have been decontrolled by his Department since 1951.

Mr. Amory: Controls have been removed from some 40 categories of foodstuffs.

Captain Pilkington: In view of the fact that such things as meat, eggs, cheese and bacon are cheaper than when under control—[HON. MEMBERS: "Meat?"]—meat, eggs, cheese and bacon are cheaper than when under control, when will he decontrol the remaining foods?

Mr. Amory: There are very few foodstuffs left under control today.

Consumption Statistics

Mr. Willey: asked the Minister of Food how the consumption of butter, cheese and eggs for 1954 compares with the consumption in 1950.

Mr. Amory: In 1950 consumption per head was:



lb.


Butter
16·9


Cheese
10·1 and


Eggs (shell)
28·2


The provisional figures for 1954 are 14·2, 10·0 and 26·8 1b., respectively.

Mr. Willey: Can the right hon. Gentleman hold out any hope that as far as these essential foodstuffs are concerned we will ever reach the 1950 levels of consumption? Does he realise that this applies not only to these foodstuffs but to many others as well?

Mr. Amory: We have a situation today where these foodstuffs are in free supply and are available at prices lower than those prices current at the time of decontrol.

Lieut.-Colonel Lipton: asked the Minister of Food whether he will inquire into the causes of the reduced consumption of dairy products, eggs, and vegetables in 1954, as compared with 1950.

Mr. Amory: No, Sir. To do so would not be justified. Food consumption as a whole shows a substantial improvement during recent years.

Lieut.-Colonel Lipton: How can the right hon. Gentleman possibly reconcile the fantastic statement he has just made with the figures given in the Economic Survey published the other day, which show that there has been a substantial drop in the consumption of the articles mentioned in the Question in 1954 as compared with 1950? Is he challenging the accuracy of the Economic Survey, which shows that people are much worse off now than they were four years ago?

Mr. Amory: As the hon. and gallant Gentleman knows, in 1950 the national stocks of food were allowed to run down rather seriously, with effects over the next year. Summing up the evidence, I would give the calory figures, which for 1950 were 3,050 and for last year were 3,120 provisionally.

Mr. T. Williams: Will the right hon. Gentleman say, if there has been a large increase in the consumption of food in 1954 over 1950, where it came from?

Mr. Amory: I think it came from many sources, and it shows the wisdom of the Government in handing over responsibility for the provision of our food so largely to private enterprise.

Dr. Summerskill: Could the right hon. Gentleman say whether he has evidence to show that the increase is great in all the lowest income groups?

Hon. Members: Answer.

Mr. Amory: If the right hon. Lady will study the evidence, she will find that the increased consumption of food seems to be spread over a quite remarkably wide cross-section of the community.

Meat (Prices)

Lieut.-Colonel Lipton: asked the Minister of Food what reply he has received from the meat trade to his letter drawing attention to the disadvantages of averaging out the prices of home-killed and imported meat.

Mr. Amory: The letter did not call for a reply, but I am glad to say it has received a great deal of publicity and there are indications that many traders are co-operating by adjusting prices.

Lieut.-Colonel Lipton: Can the right hon. Gentleman say what these indications boil down to? Is it not a fact that the retail price of imported meat has been excessive, and to what extent has the Ministerial letter resulted in any fall in the retail price of imported meat?

Mr. Amory: The latest information I have is up to 22nd March, and up to that time it showed that there have been falls in the retail price of frozen meat varying between 4d. a 1b. on the better cuts to 1d. a 1b. on the cheaper qualities.

Oral Answers to Questions — MINISTRY OF SUPPLY

Motor Industry (Australian Import Restrictions)

Mr. Edelman: asked the Minister of Supply whether he has noted the difficulties which will be caused to the British motor industry as a result of the Australian import cuts; and whether he will refer this problem to the National Advisory Council for the Motor Manufacturing Industry for its consideration.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Supply (Sir Edward Boyle): As my right hon. Friend the Minister of State, Board of Trade, said on 29th March, the effect of the Australian import restrictions on the motor industry's exports is not expected to be severe, and the motor industry is confident of being able to develop other export markets. Problems which may arise will be dealt with by the day-to-day contacts between the Ministry of Supply and the industry. I also have no doubt that the National Advisory Council for the Motor Manufacturing Industry will consider this matter at their next meeting.

Mr. Edelman: But despite the complacency of the Minister, is he not aware that the situation is being watched with keen anxiety by tens of thousands of motor workers in the Midlands, and will he not use the National Advisory Council precisely for the purpose for which it was created, namely, to deal with situations of this kind?

Sir E. Boyle: My right hon. Friend is not in the least complacent, because this is a matter of great importance, but he thinks that any problems which may arise can best be dealt with by direct contact between his Department and the industry.

Government Contracts, Northern Ireland

Mr. A. Roberts: asked the Minister of Supply if he will place additional contracts in Northern Ireland to mitigate the distress caused by unemployment.

Sir E. Boyle: As my right hon. and learned Friend said in reply to the hon. Member on 15th November, last, we fully realise the importance of Government contracts to Northern Ireland, which is treated as a Development Area for the purpose of placing such contracts. We do all we can to place orders there.

Mr. Roberts: Is the Minister aware that the unemployment figures for last month have gone up by 500 and that in almost every town in Northern Ireland unemployment runs into four figures?

Sir E. Boyle: The staff of my right hon. Friend is already fully aware of the desirability of placing as many orders as possible in development areas, and my right hon. Friend is fully aware of the facts to which the hon. Gentleman has drawn attention. It is fair to point out, however, that the Britannia contract placed with Short Brothers and Harland at Belfast will provide a rising curve of employment exceeding 500 by June of this year and reaching 1,800 by June of next year.

Mr. McKibbin: Is my right hon. Friend aware that ever since the Comet disaster I have been in touch with his Department, and whilst we appreciate very much the orders for the Britannias, that does not mean that we could not do with more?

Sir E. Boyle: We are indeed aware of the interest which the hon. Gentleman takes in his constituents.

Mr. Callaghan: Surely the hon. Gentleman does not claim that the Britannias were given as an order because this is a Development Area? Can he tell us specifically what Development Area contracts have been given to Northern Ireland quite distinct from the Britannias, which have nothing to do with this?

Sir E. Boyle: I gave the figures about the Britannias because I thought they might be of interest to the House, but if the hon. Gentleman wants to put down a Question about particular contracts, perhaps he will do so?

Mr. Callaghan: With great respect, the Parliamentary Secretary himself said that this was treated as a Development Area for the purpose of contracts. All I am asking is whether he can tell us what contracts have been placed in Northern Ireland recently for Development Area purposes?

Sir E. Boyle: No, but I can tell the hon. Gentleman that the value of contracts placed in Northern Ireland in the year up to 28th February, 1955, was £8 million.

Blacksmiths and Agricultural Engineers (Steel Supplies)

Mr. J. E. B. Hill: asked the Minister of Supply whether he is aware that country blacksmiths and agricultural engineers are being hampered in urgent repair work by lack of mild steel rods and flats; and whether he will cause import licences to be granted for the comparatively small amounts required.

Sir E. Boyle: No, Sir. I am not aware of the particular difficulties to which my hon. Friend refers although I know that the high level of industrial demand for steel, including mild steel rods, flats and other light rolled sections, is causing some shortages. Deliveries of these types from home mills are now, however, over 10 per cent. higher than a year ago. They can be imported under open individual licences from non-dollar sources and my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade is always prepared to consider applications for licences to import them for dollars.

Mr. Hill: Is my hon. Friend aware that delivery dates of country stock holders, from whom these blacksmiths draw their supplies mostly in small quantities of a few cwt. at a time, have lengthened from one month last year to 12 months this year, and would he therefore take any steps he can to shorten that period?

Sir E. Boyle: Additional supplies of light rolled steel products are now becoming available and are being distributed as fairly as possible amongst users and stock holders.

Helicopters

Mr. Emrys Hughes: asked the Minister of Supply the cost of the latest type of helicopter for which contracts have been let by his Department.

Sir E. Boyle: As the hon. Member was told on 24th March, 1952, it is contrary to established practice to disclose contract prices.

Mr. Hughes: Is there any need for all this mystery about the cost of a helicopter, when so many questions have been asked about the desirability of using it in the Forces?

Sir E. Boyle: It is our practice not to disclose contract prices as a general principle, and that applies in this case as well.

Mr. Hughes: But could the hon. Gentleman give us some idea of the cost?

Tanks

Mr. Emrys Hughes: asked the Minister of Supply the cost of a Centurion tank and a Conqueror tank.

Sir E. Boyle: It would not be in the public interest to disclose this information.

Mr. Hughes: But is the Minister aware that in the time of the Labour Government these figures were given in debate by the Minister, and could he not clear up the mystery here?

Sir E. Boyle: Yes, Sir, the hon. Gentleman has more than once drawn the attention of the House to the fact that some figures were given in the Report of the Select Committee on Estimates, but that was exceptional and will not be repeated.

Mr. H. Morrison: There may be good reasons why these figures should not be given, but would it not be more satisfactory if the hon. Gentleman would say what is the nature of the reasons why they should not be given?

Sir E. Boyle: Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman would put down a Question about that.

Mr. Shinwell: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that not only the Labour Government but also the present Government have frequently disclosed the cost of aircraft and other weapons, and what is the

reason this information is withheld? It seems very mysterious. Can we get an answer?

Sir E. Boyle: I have nothing to add to what I have said already.

Mr. Emrys Hughes: asked the Minister of Supply how the cost of the latest type of tank compares with the tank used in 1945.

Sir E. Boyle: Satisfactorily.

Mr. Hughes: But is the Minister aware that the House will get the impression that these figures are not being given because they would shock the taxpayer?

Sir E. Boyle: If the right hon. Gentleman would like to know, the cost of the Centurion tank has been coming down recently as production has settled into its stride.

Oral Answers to Questions — HOSPITALS

Boy's Death, Wembley

Mr. D. Griffiths: asked the Minister of Health what staff changes have been made at Wembley Hospital because of the death of a boy, following an operation, on 14th February, 1955.

The Minister of Health (Mr. Iain Macleod): No staff changes have yet been made, but the question of appointing an additional registrar is under consideration.

Mr. Griffiths: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware of the uneasiness which has followed the inquest on the boy, by a coroner who is himself a doctor, about the calling, conduct and adequacy of reputable men? Is he also aware that two medical men have given me the impression that the hospital is not in keeping with what hospitals should be in adequacy of staff?

Mr. Macleod: I do not think we should allow any such impression to go out about a hospital without very much more evidence than the hon. Member produces. So far as the coroner's opinion is concerned, his verdict was death from misadventure. He considered that the child received competent medical attention, that all proper precautions had been taken and that everything possible had been done by the persons present. In


view of that, I think that the answer which I have given is probably the right one.

Mr. Griffiths: I am afraid that what the Minister has stated is not exactly correct. Will he look further into the matter? If he will read a copy of the full autopsy report presented at the inquest, he will see that there is some confusion about the time between notification by the nurse and the arrival of an adequate member of the staff. Is he aware that a consulting surgeon living in close proximity is on call but that very often it is not possible to call him?

Mr. Macleod: I have told the House what the verdict was. I have seen a very full report of the case, including the details of the times to which the hon. Gentleman has referred. However, in view of what he has said, I am willing to call for a further report and go into the whole matter.

Guishorough Hospital (Capital Allocation)

Mr. Palmer: asked the Minister of Health if he will make a supplementary capital allocation to the Newcastle Regional Hospital Board for the completion of the unfinished building block at Guisborough General Hospital, on which work was first started before the last war.

Mr. Iain Macleod: No additional allocation is available this year, and it is in any case the responsibility of the regional hospital board in the first instance to determine the priority of this scheme compared with others needed in its area.

Mr. Palmer: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the needs of the chronic elderly sick in Cleveland are very real indeed, and would not the completion of this building be an obvious and relatively cheap way to deal with the problem?

Mr. Macleod: I should certainly like some time to see the completion of the ward block for the chronic sick, but obviously the Minister cannot start picking out individual cases. It must be left to the board concerned, which at the moment does not give it a particularly high priority.

Dr. Stross: asked the Minister of Health whether he is aware of the shortage of pharmacists in the hospital service; for how many assistants and senior assistants there were vacancies at the nearest available date; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Iain Macleod: Yes, Sir. In August last there were deficiencies on complements of 281 in the basic grade and 64 in the senior grade. On the last part of the Question, I have nothing at present to add to the statement which I made on 9th February in reply to the hon. Member for Newcastle-upon-Tyne, East (Mr. Blenkinsop).

Dr. Stross: Will the right hon. Gentleman remind me and the House of what he has in mind to remedy the deficiency? Has he no further statement to make?

Mr. Macleod: Nothing very much at the moment. The main and obvious question which is being asked is about salaries. That is a matter for the Whitley Council, and it is meeting on Wednesday to discuss it.

Mr. K. Robinson: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the position will never be satisfactory until he begins to adopt some of the suggestions made in the Report of the Committee which sat under the chairmanship of his hon. Friend the Member for Putney (Sir H. Linstead)?

Mr. Macleod: I have answered that question before. I have published the Report, and I have taken note of what it says.

Dr. Stross: asked the Minister of Health the salady paid to a locum tenens pharmacist in the hospital service; and what is the salary paid to a permanent officer of the basic grade.

Mr. Iain Macleod: There is no nationally agreed salary for them. Payment varies according to the prevailing rate in the area in which they are required. The standard salary of a hospital pharmacist in the basic grade is £450 a year at age 23, rising by annual increments of £25 to £575, with an extra £20 or £30, according to age, in the Metropolitan area. A claim for increases is before the Pharmaceutical Whitley Council.

Dr. Stross: Would it be out of place to ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he has noted that in many cases locums are not as well qualified as the men under whom they must serve, but that, by and large, they get substantially more than the permanent officers? Is that not somewhat invidious and will it not make for difficulty?

Mr. Macleod: Yes, Sir, that is certainly true in many cases. The question whether there should be national rates for locums is a matter which I am sure the two sides of the Whitley Council will discuss in the negotiations to which I have referred.

Mr. Blenkinsop: Does the right hon. Gentleman agree with the necessity for maintaining a fully adequate hospital pharmaceutical service, and, that being so, will he make appropriate representations to the Whitley Council about the matter?

Mr. Macleod: I certainly agree with the first part of the hon. Gentleman's supplementary question, but it is no part of my duty to make representations to the Whitley Council on the matter of wages.

Dr. Stross: asked the Minister of Health whether his attention has been drawn to the fact that pharmacists in the hospital services are in some cases unable, owing to depletion of staff to prepare their own injectable fluids; and whether he will give an estimate of the increased cost to the service as a whole due to this factor.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Health (Miss Patricia Hornsby-Smith): My right hon. Friend is aware that this has happened in some hospitals, but he is unable to estimate the increased cost to the service on this account.

Dr. Stross: Can the hon. Lady say whether it is true that the cost estimated for Manchester alone was said to be in the region of £7,000 a year?

Miss Hornsby-Smith: No, Sir, we have no figures for individual hospitals, but a memorandum has recently been circulated to hospitals recommending that where the amount spent on perfusion fluids is more than £1,500 a year, they should consider preparation within their own pharmacies or on a group basis.

St. Luke's Hospital, Lowestoft

Mr. Edward Evans: asked the Minister of Health why St. Luke's Hospital, Lowestoft, has been out of use since the end of the war; and what plans he has for its use in view of the necessity for an increase in hospital accommodation.

Mr. Iain Macleod: It has not so far been possible to provide the very considerable sum needed to make the hospital fit for use. The regional hospital board has recently proposed that reconditioning should be undertaken as part of the increased building programme which I announced on 9th February, but I am not yet able to say whether this can be agreed.

Mr. Evans: Is the Minister aware of the grave disquiet in Lowestoft and neighbourhood that this magnificent building with a unique site overlooking the North Sea which has Iain fallow for ten years should have no prospect of habitation? This is a real waste. Does the Minister intend to do something drastic very soon'?

Mr. Macleod: There is at last a very real prospect of something being done, because we have an important programme of hospital building and that is one of the projects which is being put forward as a suggestion to me by the regional hospital board. But there are many claimants in East Anglia, many of whom are brought to my attention by my hon. Friends on this side of the House, which must be considered equally with the one enshrined in this Question.

Specialist Appointments, Newcastle

Mr. Blenkinsop: asked the Minister of Health the number of full-time and part-time specialists with appointments under Newcastle Regional Hospital Board at the latest available date, as compared with 12 months previously.

Mr. Iain Macleod: I will, with permission, circulate the figures in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Mr. Blenkinsop: Has there been a diminution in the number of full-time appointments of the regional hospital board, and will the Minister indicate his views upon it?

Mr. Macleod: No, there has not, so the second question does not arise. There has been a slight increase.

Following are the figures:


—
September, 1954, the latest date September, for which figures are available
September 1953


Consultants




Number employed whole-time
112
106


Total hours worked weekly by part-time consultants
7,161
7,145


Senior Hospital




Medical and Dental Officers




Number employed whole-time
64
59


Total hours worked weekly by part-time staff
924
819

Student Nurses

Mr. Sorensen: asked the Minister of Health if he has now invited the London teaching hospitals to consider the seconding of student nurses to mental and other hospitals as part of their training; if he will publish figures showing the proportion of beds to nurses in the teaching hospitals and in the average general hospital in the London area; and what is being done by regional boards to ensure an equitable distribution of staff within their regions and as between one region and another.

Miss Hornsby-Smith: My right hon. Friend is inviting representatives of the London teaching hospitals to discuss the further secondment of student nurses with his officers next month. At 31st December, 1953, the ratio of beds to nursing staff was: in the London teaching hospitals 1·27 to 1 and in general hospitals under the metropolitan regional hospital boards 1·79 to 1. He is satisfied that regional hospital boards are doing their utmost, by establishment control and other means to improve the distribution of nursing staff.

Mr. Sorensen: Is the hon. Lady aware that, while I appreciate the work the hospital boards are doing, it is still true that large numbers of general hospitals are grossly understaffed while many of the teaching hospitals are overstaffed?
What is being done to remove that disparity?

Miss Hornsby-Smith: There is certainly a different standard and, secondly, my right hon. Friend has continuously been dealing with this question of secondment from the teaching hospitals. We are now working with them to see if further secondment into particular spheres to ease the shortage can take place. I quite agree that we can look for fruitful results from the present negotiations.

District Hospital, St. Austell

Mr. G. Wilson: asked the Minister of Health what priority the South-Western Regional Hospital Board and his Department give to the building of a district hospital at St. Austell.

Mr. Iain Macleod: No decision has yet been taken as to the priority to be given to this scheme. The extent and scope of the provision required are at present under consideration by the hospital management committee and regional hospital board.

Mr. Wilson: Can my right hon. Friend give an assurance that the recent decision to build an area hospital at Truro will not prejudice the building of a district hospital at St. Austell, in respect of which a legacy of £63,000 is at hand?

Mr. Macleod: The legacy could meet only a fraction of the capital cost involved and would not help towards maintenance which I would have to bear in future years. Of course, the general provision in an area is taken into account, but I know that the needs of St. Austell are prominently before the regional hospital board.

Stapleton Park Farm

Mr. Sylvester: asked the Minister of Health the area of arable land taken over by the Stapleton Park Farm Committee and what is the area now; what profits accrued to his Department as a result of the workings of the farm; what was the purchase price; and what is the valuation of the farm today.

Mr. Iain Macleod: I am informed that the area of arable land when the Committee took over in 1948 was 547 acres, and in March, 1954, it was 579; the profits between these two dates totalled £21,524 11 s. 10d. The purchase price of


the farm in 1937 was £10,000. No up-to-date valuation is available but one is now being made.

Mr. Sylvester: Has the Minister any idea at all of the present-day valuation?

Mr. Macleod: No, Sir. I will let the hon. Member know as soon as the valuation comes in.

Oral Answers to Questions — MINISTRY OF HEALTH

Registration Numbers

Mr. H. Hynd: asked the Minister of Health what procedure should be followed by men returning to civilian life after military service and by children born within the last five years, who have no national registration numbers, and by other people who have forgotten their national registration numbers, when they are asked to produce those numbers for National Health Service purposes.

Miss Hornsby-Smith: Service men on release, and infants when birth is registered, are automatically issued with National Health Service numbers. People who have forgotten their National Health Service number should communicate with their local executive council.

Mr. Hynd: I am not asking about National Health Service numbers. I am asking about the national registration numbers which are asked for when application is made for service under the National Health Scheme. Is it not ridiculous that people should still be asked for the national registration numbers, which most of them do not know? Does the hon. Lady know her own national registration number?

Miss Hornsby-Smith: CMBR 53/1. I think the hon. Gentleman will recognise that no sizeable registration scheme with so many people bearing the same name could possibly be carried out without some method using numbers. In the case of the National Health Service, it was obviously the better solution to take the national registration numbers, which were available and were known to most people, who had borne them for 10 years, rather than institute an entirely new Health Service scheme.

Mr. Hynd: As the hon. Lady shows by her reply to my supplementary question that she understood the Question, why should she have given an evasive reply?

Miss Hornsby-Smith: Nonsense. The hon. Member has asked me about men returning to civilian life, and I have stated that on release they are told, and reminded in their discharge papers, what their Health Service number is.

Mr. Lindgren: Will the hon. Lady say what will happen to the people who took Tory advice to destroy their national registration cards?

Miss Hornsby-Smith: If the hon. Gentleman will cast his mind back, he will remember that my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House most emphatically in this House enjoined people when the national identity card system came to an end that the numbers would apply to the National Health Service.

Mr. H. Morrison: Can the hon. Lady really deal with this? Was it not the case that the country was given the impression that it was a great act of virtue on the part of the Government to abolish the national registration numbers, that it was, so to speak, an act of setting the people free, but is it not the case now that we are told that people should not have been set free and that they should remember their registration numbers? Are they not now landed with two numbers, the registration number and the National Health number, and will they not get into a state of confusion?

Miss Hornsby-Smith: The right hon. Gentleman—it is unusual for him, I must confess—is more than ever confused about this matter. It was due to the practical application of common sense by this Government that, instead of instituting a new series of registration numbers for the National Health Service, we applied the national registration numbers.

Health Service (Costs Committee)

Mr. K. Robinson: asked the Minister of Health when he now expects to receive the report of the Guillebaud Committee; and when it will be published.

Mr. Iain Macleod: I understand that the Report may be ready by the autumn. It will, of course, be published soon thereafter.

Mr. Blenkinsop: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether the publication is likely to be interfered with by any other untoward events?

Mr. Macleod: Whatever events may occur, I am sure that it will be a Conservative Minister who will present it to the House.

Sanitary Inspectors

Mr. Blenkinsop: asked the Minister of Health whether he will seek to obtain a reliable and up-to-date estimate of the shortage of sanitary inspectors for local government employment; and what further action he proposes to take to meet the situation.

Miss Hornsby-Smith: No, Sir. A fresh estimate would not, in my right hon. Friend's view, help to relieve the situation. He is proceeding as quickly as possible to conclude discussions on the implementation of the Report of the Working Party on Recruitment, Training and Qualification of Sanitary Inspectors, which included recommendations directed towards overcoming the shortage.

Mr. Blenkinsop: Is the hon. Lady aware of the anxiety caused in local government circles by replies given in this House a short while ago, which seemed to indicate a lack of appreciation of the seriousness of the shortage in view of the very great importance of preventative health work being done for which these sanitary inspectors are well qualified? Does she fully understand how urgent it is to get more sanitary inspectors?

Miss Hornsby-Smith: I should have thought that the sanitary inspectors would be much more concerned to see that my right hon. Friend was taking prompt action without spending time pursuing more surveys which would probably come to the same concluion as that at which we have already arrived. We have received deputations from eleven of the bodies concerned, and we are about to put out revised proposals in an endeavour to reconcile the conflicting interests of the bodies concerned. Certainly there is no delay on our part.

Mr. Blenkinsop: Does the hon. Lady appreciate that the last reply given in this House suggested that the Ministry was unaware of the situation and thought that it was not as serious as we know it to be? It was to that question that I wanted to draw attention.

Miss Hornsby-Smith: I do not accept the hon. Member's comments, because I had the honour to make the last replies and I said quite plainly that my right hon. Friend accepted in principle the findings of the Working Party and was acting upon them.

World Health Organisation

Mr. Blenkinsop: asked the Minister of Health whether he will give instructions to the British delegates to the Annual Conference of the World Health Organisation to propose an increase in the regular budget of that body, in view of the great value of its work both to this country and to all members of the United Nations Organisation.

Miss Hornsby-Smith: No, Sir. The 1956 budget proposed by the Director-General of the Organisation already provides for a small increase over that for 1955, which, in turn, was substantially higher than the budget for 1954.

Mr. Blenkinsop: Does the hon. Lady appreciate that the figures proposed are woefully inadequate for the very wide needs of the World Health Organisation? Will she instruct the delegates from this country to press for greater world recognition of the importance of this work and the willingness of this country to make its contribution towards it?

Miss Hornsby-Smith: There is a very clear line of demarcation between the World Health Organisation and the particular items which are far more appropriate to the Expanded Programme of Technical Assistance which comes under the Foreign Office. As early as 1952 the General Assembly of the United Nations urged that the time had come for these Specialised Agencies to stabilise their regular budgets and clearly define their operations.

Analgesia (Trilene)

Mr. Sorensen: asked the Minister of Health to what extent trilene has replaced the use of analgesia in respect of


confinements in hospitals and by midwives; what is the particular advantage of trilene; and what is the difference in cost.

Miss Hornsby-Smith: My right hon. Friend has no information about the extent of its use in hospitals, and it is too early yet to assess its use in domiciliary practice. Its chief advantage over gas-and-air in the domiciliary field is that the apparatus is more easily transportable. The costs of administration contain a number of highly variable factors, and we have not yet enough experience to make comparisons.

Mr. Sorensen: Will the hon. Lady see what is being done to ensure that trilene, if it is so superior to the other methods of analgesia, is now being much more widely used than before?

Miss Hornsby-Smith: It is only recently that it came to be in general use by midwives, and it is a little too early to make an accurate comparison, but we are watching the matter very closely.

Dr. Summerskill: Can the hon. Lady say why hospital authorities are not asked to make a return on this subject?

Miss Hornsby-Smith: If the right hon. Lady likes to put down that Question, I shall be delighted to deal with it.

Dr. Summerskill: Will the hon. Lady not recall that I asked it about a year ago?

Oral Answers to Questions — CHURCH PROPERTY, PADDINGTON (LEASES)

Mr. Parkin: asked the hon. Member for Finchley as representing the Church Commissioners, how many leaseholders they have in Shirland Road, Paddington; whether the lease of number 39 is held jointly with other properties; what powers of control the Commission has over the granting of sub-leases; and whether the sale of sub-leases for cash is permitted within the terms of the original lease.

Sir John Crowder: The Commissioners have 64 leaseholders in Shirland Road, Paddington. The lease of No. 39 in-

cludes two other properties, and was granted in 1868 for 971 years at £2 per year. There is no covenant in any of these leases requiring the consent of the Commissioners to the grant or sale of sub-leases.

Mr. Parkin: Will it surprise the hon. Member to know that the lease of No. 39 has changed hands twice since the war? A speculator bought it with nine years to run for £300. He sold it a few months later to two Jamaicans for £840. It is now owned by one West Indian who lives in Brixton. The payment of such amounts makes it impossible to recover the money except by gross overcrowding. Trading in the fag-ends of leases is a threat to the home life of thousands of people in Paddington. Will the Church Commissioners take their heads out of the sand, sack their agents and do something about it before they get a scandalous reputation for their handling of this social problem as they previously had as brothel owners?

Sir J. Crowder: The Church Commissioners cannot be held responsible for leases granted in 1868. [HON. MEMBERS: "Why not?"] Because they were not there then. It was altogether another body—the Ecclesiastical Commissioners. which is not the Church Commissioners. But a few of these properties in Shirland Road are being offered for auction next month, so perhaps the hon. Gentleman would like to bid for some of them. As regards sub-letting by the head leaseholder, as I informed the hon. Gentleman, we have no power to stop him because there was nothing in the 1868 lease to stop the owner of the head lease from subletting. I will make further inquiries to see if anything can be done, and I will let the hon. Gentleman know.

Mr. Donnelly: What is the general policy of the Commissioners about new leases?

Sir J. Crowder: I understand that all new leases will contain a covenant requiring the Commissioners' consent to assignments and sub-letting covering a period of more than three years, so that all possible steps are being taken.

NEWSPAPER INDUSTRY DISPUTE (COURT OF INQUIRY)

Mr. Robens: Mr. Robens (by Private Notice) asked the Minister of Labour and National Service whether he has any further statement to make about the dispute which has caused a stoppage in the newspaper industry.

The Minister of Labour and National Service (Sir Walter Monckton): Since my earlier statement to the House there have been developments in this dispute. The continued inability of members of the Newspaper Proprietors Association to produce newspapers as a result of the strike of maintenance engineers and electricians caused them to give notice to members of the printing trade unions employed by them to terminate their employment on 15th April. Following this decision approaches were made to my Department by the Printing and Kindred Trades Federation, and I received a deputation from the General Purposes Committee of the Trades Union Congress. Both stressed the serious consequences to members of other trade unions which had resulted from the stoppage of work by members of the Amalgamated Engineering Union and Electrical Trades Union, and asked that every endeavour should be made to secure a resumption of work as quickly as possible.
My officers have been in contact with the parties throughout and a further joint meeting of the parties took place under the auspices of the Ministry on Friday, 1st April. Efforts to find a basis for a resumption of work lasted for more than ten hours, but no agreement was reached on the main issue of the amount of the increase in wages to be paid to the maintenance engineers and electricians. The representatives of the Newspaper Proprietors Association repeated their willingness to refer the dispute to arbitration and to abide by the result, but the union representatives were not willing to go to arbitration.
In the circumstances, I have set up a Court of Inquiry to inquire into the causes and circumstances of the dispute, which will proceed with its examination of the dispute as rapidly as possible. I regret that the hope which was expressed to the Amalgamated Engineering Union

and Electrical Trades Union on my behalf that work should be resumed immediately to allow the Court to conduct its inquiries in a strike-free atmosphere has not been realised, and I feel sure that the House will share my view that now that an impartial inquiry into the whole dispute is being conducted the trade unions concerned should recommend their members to return to work without delay.

Mr. Robens: Does not the right hon. and learned Gentleman regard it as highly desirable that the Court of Inquiry should complete its task before the notices given to all other workers in the newspaper industry expire? If so, could he say whether the Court of Inquiry will complete its work before that date, 15th April? Secondly, does the Minister feel that, despite the ten hours' negotiation which his Department had with the unions concerned, it is not too late to make a further approach to see whether or not the men would resume work until the completion of the work of the Court of Inquiry?

Sir W. Monckton: I share the view expressed by the right hon. Gentleman about the urgency of the work of the Court. I have every hope that it will set about its task of hearing the matters in dispute on Wednesday after such preliminary meeting as it thinks necessary, and that it will do its best to complete its work and let us have the result before 15th April so that we may know where we stand. I am sure that the Court will do its best. I cannot say more. If the right hon. Gentleman can think of some other means of getting the men back to work before that date, I shall be very glad to try to adopt it. I am satisfied that there was no other move which could have been made last Friday—indeed, there was very little after the Friday before—which could have had that result. I only hope that the view of the right hon. Gentleman, which I hold myself, about the desirability of getting back to work while the Court sits, will have some effect among the men.

Mr. Robens: Is it clear to the unions in dispute that it is impossible for any negotiations to take place until the Court has completed its work and that, therefore, at least until then, the dispute is really without much avail? In those circumstances, is not it common sense for the men to resume work until such time as the inquiry is completed?

Sir W. Monckton: It was upon that basis that, through my officers, I urged the men to resume work while the Court was sitting. At that time they felt unable to do so. I hope that they will read what the right hon. Gentleman has said and take his advice.

Sir T. Moore: Is my right hon. and learned Friend aware that many of us here, and, I believe, many others outside, would prefer to continue without the London newspapers rather than to submit to a pressure which is very akin to blackmail?

Sir W. Monckton: I suppose that all hon. Members of the House must bear this infliction as well as they can. As to the second part of my hon. Friend's question, I would rather not qualify anybody's action until the Court has reported.

Mr. Lee: Would the Minister make it clear that in setting up the Court of Inquiry he has been influenced in some degree by the fact that the unions have refused to go to arbitration? Further, would he point out that it is quite unusual, almost unheard of, in this country to ask trade unions which have never had the opportunity of negotiating with the employers to go to arbitration?

Sir W. Monckton: It is undesirable that I should go into this matter which the Court will have to inquire into, beyond saying that I set up the Court solely because when representations were made to me it was the only step that I could take which might have resulted in the men going back to work. I still hope that it will have that result.

Mr. Robens: Have the unions in dispute agreed to take part in the work of the Court?

Sir W. Monckton: They have been informed that the Court will be sitting on Wednesday. I have not yet heard of any decision on that point.

Mr. M. Lindsay: Can my right hon. and learned Friend say what is the number of men involved now and the number who are likely to be put out of work after 15th April if the stoppage continues, including the unfortunate street vendors?

Sir W. Monckton: I should not like to be held to the number, but among the unions concerned in the Federation of

which I spoke I suppose it is between 15,000 and 20,000. I cannot give the number of news vendors, but most of us know that some of these unfortunate men are already suffering hardship as a result of the stoppage.

Mr. Paget: Is not it a fact that the extent of this stoppage is the result of the operation of a newspaper cartel, and that a number of newspaper proprietors have been anxious to pay the increased rate pending a settlement, and to publish, but are not allowed to do so by the cartel? Is not it a fact that the strike can be stopped tomorrow if the increased rates are paid pending a settlement of the dispute?

Sir W. Monckton: I must say to the hon. and learned Member that I have often found cases in which it would be easy to bring a dispute to an end if one gave the fruits before the negotiation took place. As to the rest of the hon. and learned Gentleman's suggestions, he is better informed, as I would expect him to be, than I can claim to be, but I have a hope that those are just the questions which the Court will discover for itself.

Mr. Nicholson: Apart altogether from the merits of the dispute, is my right hon. and learned Friend aware that there is great concern in the country on the larger issues involved? It is a serious situation if a few hundred people on both sides can hold up the processes of democracy by preventing the dissemination of news to three-quarters of the country. Will my right hon. and learned Friend bear that aspect of the question in mind?

Sir W. Monckton: I certainly do not underestimate the importance of a stoppage of this kind. It is a serious reflection that it has on this occasion been brought about by a complaint by about 700 men.

Mr. Robens: At the same time, the right hon. and learned Gentleman would agree, would he not, that the 700 men have a perfect right either to withhold their labour or not in accordance with negotiations which take place with the employers? Will not the problems which have arisen from this dispute become much more clear when we have the result of the inquiry?

Sir W. Monckton: I entirely agree. I do not want to add another word. Let the Court inquire and report and let me withhold judgment until I have got the report.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Proceedings on Government Business exempted, at this day's Sitting, from the provisions of Standing Order No. 1 (Sittings of the House).—[Mr. Crook-shank.]

TURCO-IRAQI PACT (UNITED KINGDOM ACCESSION)

3.40 p.m.

The Minister of State for Foreign Affairs (Mr. Anthony Nutting): I beg to move,
That this House approves the accession of Her Majesty's Government to the Turco-Iraqi Pact of Mutual Co-operation and the Special Agreement which has been concluded with the Iraqi Government.
Last November the House debated Middle Eastern affairs with special reference to the Anglo-Egyptian Agreement and the Persian Oil settlement, which had then just been concluded. In opening that debate, I said that these Agreements marked a good beginning in settling problems and that we and our partners would go forward to develop these achievements in the positive direction of promoting unity, strength and well-being throughout the Middle East. The arrangements which we are now considering are, I believe, an important further step in that direction.
It has long been the purpose of British policy to establish and maintain an effective defence system for the Middle East. This need has, in the past, been dictated by the simple facts of geography and strategy alone. Lately, the development of the oil resources of this area has added yet another compelling factor to the need for adequate and effective Middle East defence. At the same time, the political and strategic picture has changed considerably. Nationalism as well as nuclear weapons have made their appearance; and we must take account of them and adapt our plans accordingly. That is what we have done in our new Agreement with Iraq and our accession to the Turco-Iraqi Pact. Our strategic need today is to safeguard and strengthen the extreme right flank of N.A.T.O. At the same time, the change in the political scene requires us to base our defence arrangements on the concept of an equal partnership between sovereign States.
As the House knows, the 1930 Treaty with Iraq was due to expire in eighteen months' time, but, rather than wait until even nearer the end of its term, Her Majesty's Government decided to take the occasion offered by the Turco-Iraqi initiative to place our relationship with


Iraq within a wider setting. I hope that the House will accept the wisdom of this step.
My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary has said, in connection with Western European Union and European defence arrangements, that unity can only grow and cannot be imposed. The same is surely true of the countries of the Middle East. That was certainly our experience with the abortive project of 1951 for a Middle East Defence Organisation. With this lesson in mind, no Government in this country could fail to recognise the importance and significance of this spontaneous move by Turkey and Iraq to unite for their mutual defence.
It is, I am sure, in our own essential interest to encourage such a move on the part of one of our partners in N.A.T.O. and one of our oldest established allies in the Arab world. Clearly, therefore, this was not an opportunity to be missed. Clearly, this was the proper moment for Britain to remodel her defence arrangements with Iraq and lend her full support to the Pact. We hope that this new strength and unity will grow and spread and that it will eventually include other countries in the area.
Essential as this new arrangement is in its present form, it could lead to an even wider defence system and hence to greater and wider security within the whole Middle East. There is nothing in the Pact which need threaten, weaken or cause anxiety to any State in the Middle East. It is directed against no one in the area, against no State or group of States. Indeed, it respects the independence of all countries and offers a specific guarantee to any States who should accede.
In particular, Article 3 provides that the contracting parties shall refrain from any interference whatsoever in each others' internal affairs. This undertaking and guarantee will apply not only to the original parties to the Pact, but to all acceding States.

Mr. E. Shinwell: May I interrupt the right hon. Gentleman at this point, for the purpose of elucidation? He spoke about the Pact not constituting a danger to any States in the Middle East who have the right to accede to this Pact.
Is it not true, as a result of an exchange of letters between Turkey and Iraq—I agree that the Foreign Secretary dissociated himself from that exchange of letters—that Israel could not be allowed to accede to the Pact?

Mr. Nutting: Under existing circumstances Israel is not in a position to accede to the Pact, because, under Article 5, the Pact is open for accession
"to any member of the Arab League or any other State actively concerned with the security and peace in this region and which is fully recognised by both the High Contracting Parties"

Mr. Shinwell: In those circumstances—

Mr. Nutting: May I be permitted to answer the right hon. Gentleman?
Therefore, this guarantee of non-interference applies, as provided for in Article 3, only to those States who are in a position to accede to the Pact. But I believe, and it is the belief of Her Majesty's Government, that the Pact and these arrangements will—as I think I may develop in the course of my speech—provide for greater security for all States in the Middle East, including Israel.

Mr. Shinwell: Whatever the right hon. Gentleman develops in the course of his speech, have we not to deal with the facts now presented to us as a result of this Pact and the exchange of letters? Does it not follow from what he has just said that, while other States in the Middle East can be afforded a guarantee such as he suggests and which is available both to Turkey and Iraq, it cannot be afforded to the State of Israel, for the reasons which he has just stated?

Mr. Nutting: Nothing prohibits us from giving any such guarantee. Indeed, nothing, under these arrangements, in any way alters the position or the responsibilities or the obligations of Her Majesty's Government under the tripartite declaration. That was what I meant when I said that this Pact and these arrangements are in no way incompatible with Israel's interests and threatens no one—Israel or any other State in the area.
Before I leave the Turco-Iraqi Pact itself I should like to draw the attention of the House to the provision in Article 6 for a permanent Council at Ministerial level which is to be set up when at least


four parties have become parties to the Pact. This arrangement will be similar to that already existing in our defence systems in Europe with N.A.T.O. and Western European Union and in the South-East Asia Treaty Organisation. It will provide permanent machinery to review periodically the workings of our joint defence arrangements; and to coordinate policies.
Now let me turn to the main features of the Special Agreement between the United Kingdom and Iraq and to the supplementary notes annexed to it. Since my right hon. Friend's statement in the House on 30th March, this Special Agreement has been approved by the Iraqi Parliament by acclamation. It will come into force when the United Kingdom's instrument of accession to the Turco-Iraqi Pact is deposited in Bagdad tomorrow. I will not repeat what my right hon. Friend said about the Special Agreement last week. But it might be of interest to the House if I were to show how the new arrangements meet our requirements in a political and strategic situation which has changed so radically since 1930.
First of all, let me say that although the Treaty of Alliance of 1930 is terminated by the new Agreement, the peace and friendship between our two countries which was established by that Treaty is to be maintained and developed.
Article 1 of the Special Agreement makes this clear, and provides for cooperation between the United Kingdom and Iraq in our mutual security and defence.
Article 5 of the Special Agreement follows this up and provides that there shall be close co-operation between the competent authorities of the two Governments for the defence of Iraq. This co-operation shall include combined training and the provision of such facilities as may be agreed between the two Governments.
In accordance with the new basis of co-operation, the Government of Iraq assume full responsibility for the defence of their country and will command and guard all defence installations in Iraq, including the air bases at Habbaniyah and Shaiba. These bases are now to be jointly used by the Iraqis and ourselves for our common defence.
Under the old Treaty of 1930, we had the right to station air forces in Iraq. Under the new arrangement, we are to keep in Iraq R.A.F. ground staff, technicians and instructors to assist and instruct Iraqi forces and to service our aircraft. The flying units of the R.A.F. now stationed in Iraq are to be withdrawn over the next twelve months. But R.A.F. Squadrons will, under the new arrangement, visit Iraq for joint training with Iraqi squadrons, to quote the terms of the Agreement, "at all times"; and they will be looked after by our own ground staff, who will still be permanently stationed there.
The Prime Minister of Iraq, Nuri Es-Said, in his speech to the Iraqi Parliament on 30th March, said that assistance for the Iraqi Air Force and joint defence were necessary for Iraq's security. In pursuit of this aim not only will the air bases be kept in a state of readiness, but we are to help with the training of the Iraqi Air Force and with advice in operational and technical matters.
We are also to join with Iraq in setting up an effective system of anti-aircraft defence, including a radar warning system and a system of aircraft reporting. This. I submit to the House, is a very important matter indeed. For this purpose, we will make available to Iraq the co-operation and advice of British Service and technical personnel. Article 7 of the Special Agreement permits us to continue to enjoy our existing facilities for over-flying, landing and servicing our aircraft in Iraq.
The Agreement further provides for cooperation in the training and equipment of the Iraqi Army. Paragraph 8 of the first supplementary Memorandum lays down that certain defence requirements and installations which will be needed by our own forces in the event of war shall be kept in a state of readiness. These facilities include the pre-stocking of equipment and the establishment and maintenance of installations, including tank repair workshops.
Now, all these measures of co-operation relate of course to peacetime. In the event of war, under Article 8 of the Special Agreement the Government of Iraq undertake to provide all facilities and assistance to enable our aid, which may include, if necessary, armed forces, to be rapid and effective.
Our personnel who will be serving in Iraq under this Agreement will enjoy the same immunities as apply between members of the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation. They will be under the command and administration of British officers responsible to the United Kingdom Government and acting in close liaison with the Iraqi officer in command of each establishment. The Government of Iraq are to make available essential services for these personnel.
We have also taken the occasion, in connection with these negotiations, to reach a settlement of our outstanding wartime financial claims with Iraq. As part of this settlement, the Iraq Government have agreed to pay into a joint Anglo-Iraqi Trust Fund the sum of £150,000. This Fund will be used to promote good relations between the two countries. This might, for instance, include the establishment of scholarships for Iraqi students here or the development of a British school in Iraq. The actual use of this Fund has not so far been decided, but, subject to the payment of £150,000 by the Government of Iraq, the existing claims on both sides have been washed out.

Mr. Shinwell: They are not essentially military claims, are they?

Mr. Nutting: No, they are not essentially military. They are claims arising out of the war, some of them for military services and others for civil services and supplies.
My right hon. Friend said last week that we had given very special attention to the problem of the Assyrians who have rendered such excellent service to the R.A.F. My right hon. Friend said that we had had assurances from the Prime Minister of Iraq about their future. The Memorandum annexed to our Agreement provides that those members of the R.A.F. levies who wish shall join the Iraqi armed forces, and that as many as possible of the civilians shall continue in employment at the airfields. In addition, Her Majesty's Ambassador at Baghdad has informed the Iraqi Prime Minister in a letter that Her Majesty's Government intend to care for all the levies and civilians.
In the case of the levies, we propose to make suitable arrangements for pensions, and in the case of civilians to award gratuities. We shall set up suitable facilities as soon as possible for vocational training in certain trades for those who wish to find employment elsewhere in Iraq and, in certain cases which would not be adequately covered by any of these measures, we would consider making grants towards resettlement in Iraq. In reply to the Ambassador's letter, the Iraqi Prime Minister has said that he welcomes these proposals and will assist us over vocational training and resettlement in Iraq.
I am glad to be able to inform the House that our first reports of the reaction of the levies and civilian employees to these proposals have been very satisfactory. I am informed that at Habbaniya and Shaiba, a considerable majority of the levies will probably volunteer for transfer to the Iraqi Army. The Iraqi Government have been most helpful over this matter. The Prime Minister has issued a reassuring proclamation and the Chief of the General Staff is sending a senior officer of the Iraqi Army, of Assyrian origin, to Habbaniya, where the majority of employees are Assyrians, to explain the details to the personnel concerned.
I think I have said enough to show that the arrangements which we have made adequately measure up to our and Iraq's requirements in the new political and strategic situation which obtains today in the Middle East. We have made arrangements for mutual defence preparations and for joint military training and cooperation which will serve to keep both British and Iraqi forces at a high state of readiness and efficiency. If war should come to that part of the world, we and our Turkish and Iraqi friends will, by virtue of these Agreements, be the better able to act together in defence of this critically important region.
By planning our defence arrangements in this forward area—the northern tier of Middle Eastern defence, as it is sometimes called—we can the more easily deal with an aggressor before he can penetrate deeply into the Middle East. If that is realised and understood, the likelihood of war will be vastly reduced. In short, these new arrangements are yet another


essential contribution to the deterrent to aggression and to the cause for peace. As such, I commend them to the House.

3.59 p.m.

Mr. Herbert Morrison: It was announced as late as Thursday afternoon that this debate would take place today, Monday. I caused representations to be made to the effect that in an important matter of this kind that was very short notice between Thursday afternoon and Monday, even though the Foreign Secretary had made a statement on the Wednesday. I understand and follow the reasons for it; there is nothing discreditable about them, but perhaps it would not be well for us to go into them now. I hope that this will not be a precedent.
When an important arrangement of this kind is made, when the Command Paper is available in the Vote Office only a very few days before, and when the announcement of the business is made upon Thursday afternoon for the following Monday, it is rather taking liberties with the House of Commons to expect it to debate and decide this matter today.
Another point involved is that I had an appointment at 4 o'clock this afternoon. which I have now postponed until later, upon the assumption that the Secretary of State was to open the debate. In those circumstances, if I am not here he is the victim of not opening the debate, and I am the victim of his readjustment of my time-table. I apologise that that should be so.
This Pact, Agreement and Exchange of Notes are based partially upon the latest model, established by the decisions reached in respect of Egypt. They are not the same; nevertheless, there is a certain relationship between this Pact and that made with Egypt. The 1930 Treaty with Iraq, which is now ended, gave us rather more extensive rights than we have under this proposal. The Royal Air Force is to withdraw. It is a looser arrangement, which has certain characteristics related to the Egyptian Treaty.
After the Foreign Secretary made his statement about this Pact on Wednesday last, my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Northampton (Mr. Paget) asked him:
Is this system of free co-operation between equal partners the same principle as used to

be described by hon. Members opposite as the policy of scuttle?"—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 30th March, 1955; Vol. 539, c. 385.]
I admit that there may be some elements of exaggeration about it, but there is also some truth in it and I believe that my hon. and learned Friend was on to a good point there.
On the other hand, it has to be remembered that some British personnel will be left in Iraq, for training and technical purposes of a rather varied character. That has been accepted by the Government of Iraq, which is thereby going further than the Government of Egypt were willing to go. Moreover, certain facilities have been granted to the Royal Air Force in respect of passing over and visiting Iraq, and similar facilities have been granted to the Royal Iraqi Air Force in relation to visits to this country. We are also making supplies of various kinds available to Iraq.
Under Article 5 of the Agreement, Iraq undertakes to co-operate with us for her defence, and to provide facilities to that end. We are, therefore, committed to her defence in certain broad circumstances. Iraq is excluded from any obligations other than the defence of its own country, so there are clearly no reciprocal guarantees—and I accept that there could not easily be such reciprocal guarantees. Under Article 8 of the Agreement we are obligated to assist in the defence of Iraq if she is attacked, but she is not obligated to assist in the defence of our side if we should find ourselves in circumstances in which it would be advantageous for us to have her assistance.
This is the nature of the Pact which was agreed between Turkey and Iraq and which is now supplemented by the Agreement and the accession on our part to the Turco-Iraqi Pact. The Minister of State and the Foreign Secretary have agreed that we must consider this matter in the light of our general plans for the defence of the Middle East. The Minister of State referred to the proposals which I made when I was at the Foreign Office—and we were dealing with the difficulties which emerged as a consequence of Egypt's unilateral denunciation of the 1936 Treaty—that there should be a joint arrangement between equals, namely, Egypt, the United States, France and ourselves, whereby we should institute the beginnings of a mutual defence plan for the Middle East, in the hope that other


Arab States would come into it—together, possibly, with other countries.
I had a hope that, in due time, when prejudices wore off, Israel might also have come into that arrangement, and we might have had a collective defence system of a modern character for the Middle East. In those circumstances, Egypt would not have been treated as an inferior; neither would Iraq, if she had later wished to come in. They would have been treated as equals, and we should have had a modern system of collective defence for the Middle East, which most hon. Members would probably agree would have been better than the separate pacts which we are now making—although I am inclined to agree that this is perhaps the only thing that we can do in existing circumstances.
There are Agreements with Egypt, which the House debated some time ago; there is the Agreement with Jordan, and now the revised Agreement with Iraq. Apparently, there have been some repercussions in the Arab League, some members of which are against Pacts of this sort. Egypt is critical of the fact that Iraq and the United Kingdom have entered into the present arrangement. We cannot consider this Pact and our accession to it without also considering the wider implications which affect the whole of the Middle East.
As I have said, we would have preferred a real, collective security pact for the Middle East, covering a wide variety of Middle Eastern countries as well as the Western Powers, but we have increasingly to recognise and face the fact that as these Treaties, Agreements and Pacts increase in number—there are now at least three—Israel, and possible difficulties which may arise in relation to her, assume an increasing importance. We cannot, therefore, exclude consideration of Israel from this debate.
Let me briefly submit to the House the situation in which Israel finds herself, and the attitude of the Arab States to that small but progressive and democratic country. Israel is subject to an economic boycott, which hurts both ways. It hurts Israel, who cannot get adequate supplies because her ships are barred from passing through the Suez Canal, and it hurts the Arab States because they are denying

themselves water supplies and electricity supplies, consequent upon the prevention of a possible two-way traffic between the Arab States and Israel.
A so-called armistice has existed now for over five years between Israel and the Arab States, in place of the state of war which existed following the British evacuation of Israel. There is no peace; indeed, Israel is in a state of near-siege. Consequently, incidents occur with great frequency, and this keeps the Truce Supervision Organisation and other United Nations organisations busy on the spot, making inquiries into allegations by Egypt, Israel and other countries, including Jordan, of shootings, killings and attacks by one country against another.
I have in my hands a considerable document, including detailed reports of the Gaza incident, and whole pages of lists of attacks, one way or the other, which have occurred. I think the Foreign Secretary will agree that it is fair to state that when the judgments are recorded, whether people agree with them or do not, they certainly cut both ways. Various countries are criticised and condemned. This is not war in the full-scale sense of the term, but it is, I am afraid, one of the inevitable consequences of this situation of tension—of borders which are not finally settled, and of an armistice situation and a technical state of war which exists.
Although both sides have been condemned, this still goes on. There were proposals for the joint defence of the borders, which Israel has accepted, but which otherwise have not been accepted so far—I hope they may be and that there may be co-operation—and this is the situation which confronts this little State of Israel, for the creation of which, directly or indirectly, we and the United States are jointly responsible. It is a progressive, democratic State in which a considerable number of Arab citizens are politically free, politically enfranchised, and subject to similar social services as are the Jews. It seems to me a great pity that that situation should exist.
What causes us and Israel apprehension is not so much the merits—this is difficult to explain—of this series of facts in themselves, because not one of us would be disposed to deprecate the friendship between the United Kingdom


and a series of Arab States, especially if it is done within the curtilage of the United Nations. It is bound, however, to have repercussions in the direction which I have indicated and to cause increasing apprehension on the part of Israel, which at least ought to be just as much a friend of ours as are the Arab States.
This is how they feel, and I will now quote the Prime Minister of Israel, who was dealing at this point, I think, with the Turco-Iraqi Pact before British accession actually took place. He took the view that the chief harm of the Agreement lies
"in the encouragement it lends to the stubborn refusal of the Arabs to accept existing realities and make peace with Israel. In short, it renders the prospects of peace in the Middle East more remote. The treaty does not contain the customary wording of similar documents by which the parties undertake to settle by peaceful means any dispute with a third party in which either may find itself involved.
The conclusion of military assistance and mutual defence agreements by the West with the Arab States has altered the political balance with the region to our detriment, and is aggravating the dangers with which the problem of our security is in any case fraught. The Western Powers who have inspired this treaty cannot divest themselves of responsibility for the document itself or for its consequences. If they take the initiative in organising the region for purposes of defence, they thereby make themselves responsible for the effects of this activity on the position of each State within the region."
I find it difficult to be critical of that. It seems to me to be a reasonable and fair interpretation of the situation. There are these British traditions to be taken into account on the internal political balance of the situation in Israel, which I visited in the course of last year for the second time: there is a situation in which there are democratic parties who are friends of ours—friends of Western democracy—and whose thoughts, if I may say so, are perhaps very much like British thoughts. They have a parliamentary democratic system, a system of national proportional representation without any constituencies at all, which I should not like in our country. They do not like it either, but P.R. is easier to get than it is to get rid of, and that is what they are finding.
Nevertheless, the main bloc of political power is on the part of responsible democratic, parliamentary-minded people.
There exists, however, in Israel a minority element of Communists, which would wish their policy to be more adaptable to that of the Soviet Union. That is not strange: it exists in other countries, too. There is a minority element of terrorists with whom we had every reason to be familiar in past years.
What worries some of our goods friends in Israel, who are the really democratic elements, is that electorally—and they have to face an election in June or July of this year—there may be an increase in the political influence of these less responsible people, and there may be a weakening of the authority and power of the democratic bloc. That is a possibility because of what might be said in the light of these Agreements.
In the light of this series of agreements which the Western Powers have either made or inspired with the Arab States, with specific provision in them whereby there cannot be accession on the part of Israel, they may begin to say, "Well, the Western States are doing business with the Arab States on the basis that business cannot be done with Israel by accession under the Agreement, and we have not only been encircled, but the encirclement, with Western blessing, is becoming increasingly powerful. Therefore, let us have a policy of desperation by swinging the other way in world politics between the two camps of Western democracy and totalitarianism." These things may happen, and they are real apprehensions which, I think, the Foreign Secretary has to take into account.
I wish to draw attention to one or two provisions of the Pact itself, so as to drive home the point to which I have been referring. I will quote from the Turco-Iraqi Pact which, however, is not upset by the British accession. We have acceded to the whole of this Pact, to every Article, without exception, as I think the Foreign Secretary will agree. Article 3 says:
The High Contracting Parties undertake to refrain from any interference whatsoever in each other's internal affairs. They will settle any dispute between themselves in a peaceful way in accordance with the United Nation's Charter.
My recollection is that the more customary course is that they will settle any dispute, not merely between the two Contracting Parties, in a peaceful way in


accordance with the United Nations Charter, and I hope that in the course of further discussions and the Foreign Secretary's reply we shall hear why this course is preferred to what I think is the usual course.
The other article to which I have referred in the Turco-Iraqi Pact is Article 5, which says:
This pact shall be open for accession to any member of the Arab League or any other State actively concerned with the security and peace in this region and which is fully recognised by both of the High Contracting Parties.
It is well known that Israel is not recognised by the Arab States. Therefore, one of the High Contracting Parties does not recognise Israel; and this must mean that Israel is specifically excluded from the possibility of acceding to this Pact.
There is something else. There was an exchange of letters. The Foreign Secretary has announced that the Government, as regards part of these letters, have kept themselves clear and free. There is a letter from the Prime Minister of Iraq in connection with the Pact which reads:
I have the honour to place on record our understanding that this Pact will enable our two countries to co-operate in resisting any aggression directed against either of them.
Presumably Her Majesty's Government had not made reservations about contracting out of the Agreement up to that point, but it does mean that if it were held that Israel had committed aggression against Iraq—and he would be a clever man who knew who was committing aggression against whom between Israel and the surrounding Arab States—it might involve us in trouble against Israel, which would be unfortunate.
The letter goes on to say:
In order to ensure the maintenance of peace and security in the Middle East Region we have agreed to work in close co-operation for effecting the carrying out of the United Nations Resolutions concerning Palestine.
I gather that those resolutions mainly concern the border. On this point the Foreign Secretary has announced that we have, so to speak, contracted out of these particular provisions.

The Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs (Sir Anthony Eden): I will carefully check the position. As I understand, the position is that these letters are no part of the Agreement, but were exchanged entirely separately. I dissociated myself from the whole of the letters by a process—if I may use the right hon. Gentleman's phrase—of" contracting out."

Mr. Morrison: I am much obliged to the right hon. Gentleman. I had taken the Foreign Secretary's own statement. I am not disputing it. He should know, and he may well be right. He gave the information, and it was, no doubt, carefully prepared and carefully studied by his competent advisers. He said:
I wish to make it clear that in acceding to the Pact we are not associating ourselves with the letters which were exchanged at the time of signature between Turkey and Iraq Government on the subject of Palestine.
The letters go a little wider in regard to Israel itself than the first part of the letter which I have quoted, in which there is an undertaking on the part of Turkey to go to the rescue of Iraq if, in their opinion, there had been aggression against Iraq. That was the point. The Foreign Secretary said last Wednesday—

Sir A. Eden: Perhaps I may read what I said? It was:
We do not associate ourselves with that particular exchange of letters."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 30th March, 1955; Vol. 539, c. 381–4.]
That is the position.

Mr. Morrison: I accept that. What the right hon. Gentleman has said today will be on record, as well as what he said last Wednesday. His statements completely cover the point about the letters, so far as I understand them. That is satisfactory.
Can we be enlightened about one further point, in respect of the discussion that has taken place? If there were aggression against Iraq which involved Turkey—and here I am not talking about Israel or about anybody else in particular but about any aggression—what are the consequences to N.A.T.O. in its obligations towards Turkey as a member of the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation? Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman might think about that and give us his advice about it later. This is the point


that my right hon. Friend the Member for Easington (Mr. Shinwell) asked me to raise, and it is very natural, in view of his past Ministerial experience. If there were alleged aggression which involved Turkey, who is a member of the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation, what would be the direct or indirect repercussions on that organisation, as a consequence of this accession to the Agreement which is before the House this afternoon?
In all the circumstances, we do not propose to vote against the ratification of this accession to this Agreement, but we are not altogether happy about it, for the reasons I have indicated. We think that the Government's position vis-à-vis Israel is by no means satisfactory. There is a danger that the Arab States may feel that Israel is isolated, and that there is no obligation to try to settle this rather foolish position of an over-five-years' armistice, an over-five-years' cease-fire, more or less, without peace. That is bad. We ought to do everything we can about it.
I should like the Foreign Secretary to tell the House what he is doing to bring to an end this situation, which may encourage some of the Arab States to feel that Israel is isolated and that, therefore, it does not matter. It might be a source of trouble for ourselves in the Middle East. We urge that we should be careful not to be over one-sided about this matter. We should still go ahead in a determined effort to bring the parties together so that this utterly unsatisfactory and dangerous situation may be brought to an end.
This should be done not merely in the interests of Israel but of the Arab States as well, who have great economic and social advantages to gain by the ending of the state of war and the beginning of economic co-operation. It is desirable, also, for the sake of the peace of this vital and dangerous region of the Middle East. We wish that Her Majesty's Government with other friends of ours could bring the parties together or induce them to get together—which would be still better—so that a settlement may be reached.
We would like the Government to consider entering into a pact of this kind with Israel as well as with Egypt, Jordan and other States. In 1930, we made a somewhat bolder treaty with Iraq than the Foreign Secretary has made in 1955.

Sir A. Eden: Then mine cannot he so bad.

Mr. Morrison: Is it not possible that we have got to a point where we should seriously consider entering into a somewhat similar pact with Israel, so that between that progressive country and ourselves mutual help, co-operation and assistance can take place? Israel and other people would then feel that Israel, like other countries in the Middle East, has friends in the world.
We are not raising these objections to our being friends with other countries in the Middle East. We want to be friendly with Arab countries. We do not like a situation in which there is apparent indifference to, or lack of warm friendship for, one of the important democratic countries of the Middle East, and we press the right hon. Gentleman to give favourable consideration to the points which I have advanced.

4.29 p.m.

Colonel Sir Ralph Clarke: The right hon. Member for Lewisham, South (Mr. H. Morrison) devoted a considerable part of his speech to Palestine. I hope also to refer to it, but I hope the right hon. Gentleman will not think I am discourteous if I wait until I reach the part of my speech where I wish to deal with Palestine and do net deal with it directly and at once. I should, perhaps, apologise for this incursion into a foreign affairs debate. Although I have been in the House for some considerable time I think that this is the first time I have spoken in such a debate; but in the two wars I spent about five years in the Middle East and the problems we are discussing today have always been of great interest to me.
I should like first to congratulate the Foreign Secretary on the highly successful negotiations whereby we are acceding to the pact between Turkey and Iraq—thereby forging a fresh link in that traditional friendship between this country and Turkey which, with one unfortunate break, has existed between us for, I might say, centuries; and also on reaching a Special Agreement for mutual defence with the Government of Iraq, replacing the Treaty of 1930 which was due to end in about 18 months.
It is of particular importance that something fresh should replace that older


Treaty. Since it was made our position in the Middle East—and particularly in Iraq and Persia—has changed very considerably because our traditional base at Bombay is no longer available to us in the lamentable event of a war in that area. The provisions of Article 6 are, therefore, particularly important. This extension to Iraq of the relations we enjoy with Turkey and the other nations of the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation is a great advance. I sincerely hope that it is the precursor of further similar pacts in the Middle East.

I listened carefully to the Minister of State's amplification of the Agreement. Personally, I cannot see anything in the Agreement which should alarm the State of Israel. I recognise that the Israelis are very anxious, and have been for some time, but it is only fair to say that their neighbours are anxious, too.

Mr. Barnett Janner: If that is so, can the hon. and gallant Member tell us why those neighbours continually say they are at war with Israel, and why they make such violent declarations which incite people to attack Israel?

Sir R. Clarke: I have very considerable sympathy with Israel. I was in Lord Allenby's army. I cannot say that I took any real part in freeing Israel because I was wounded before I got there—but I started. At that time I thought we were writing the final chapter of an old tragedy, whereas, apparently, we were writing only the first chapter in a new volume of that tragedy.
Nevertheless, I think it is a fact—and perhaps it is complimentary to Israel—that her neighbours are just as anxious about her as Israel is about her neighbours. I realise, however, the immense importance of trying to negotiate a similar type of pact which could include Israel in the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation, remove suspicions on both sides and fill a dangerous vacuum in the defence front which we are trying to build. It is essential that something of that sort should be done as soon as possible.
What I have heard today has considerably reassured me as to the future of the Christian elements in the levies in Iraq. There is not much doubt that most

of the Mohamedan elements will be absorbed in the Iraqi forces and will be a valuable addition to them. The Christian element is a rather different problem. I greatly regret that these levies cannot continue in our service. When I saw them during the last war they were among the finest military material I had ever seen. I made such a comment to one of their officers after watching a particularly smart parade. He told me that it seemed to come natural to them and that to punish them they were merely not allowed to go on guard. They were not excused guard—they were not allowed to go on. I have often thought that some sort of foreign legion recruited from those levies would have been of great value to us.
Taking the long view, I hope that this newly-formed association between us and Iraq will provide something in addition to the Special Agreement for mutual defence—although that, of course, is its primary purpose. For many years our relationship with Iraq has been very friendly. I hope that not only will we continue such co-operation but extend it to things appertaining to peace as well as war.
During the last war I spent about a year in Iraq. I was engaged very largely in making reconnaissances of airfields. I travelled the country very widely from Amedia in the north down to the mouth of the Shatt-el-Arab. I saw a lot of the country and I was greatly impressed by it, and I became fond of it and the people—particularly the people in the north.
Iraq is an ancient country, with a long and proud history. As we all know, it is almost the cradle of mankind and it is extraordinary how practically all the great peoples of the Middle East have entered into its history: the Assyrians, the Persians, the Greeks—I believe that Alexander the Great died at Babylon. Then, of course, there came the Tartar hordes who reduced the population to about one-fifth; and from that reduction the country is only just beginning to recover.
Iraq has great potential natural advantages and today the country seems well on the road to retrieving its ancient glory. From an agricultural point of view, no country that I visited in the Middle East seemed to have greater possibilities and potentialities. The great, well-watered alluvial plain in northern Iraq is at


present very under-populated, but is capable of tremendous development. There are mountains where the people can live when the weather is too hot in the plains, just as is done in India. Here, there are enormous future possibilities. There is also the great advantage, denied to most agriculturists, of an abundant source of capital from the oil royalities with which to develop the country.
I hope and believe, therefore, that tomorrow, 5th April, when this Instrument of Accession will be deposited, will indeed be a fortunate one for the future of our relations with Iraq. Finally, in this connection, I was very pleased to hear about the good-will fund of £150,000 which is to be available to be devoted to the improvement of the relations between ourselves and Iraq.

4.41 p.m.

Mr. Gordon Walker: I shall be dealing with some of the points raised by the hon. and gallant Member for East Grinstead (Sir R. Clarke) in the course of my speech, because I intend to talk about some of the same subjects as the hon. and gallant Gentleman mentioned.
I should like first to emphasise the point made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham, South (Mr. H. Morrison) that this Pact is part of the new pattern of relationships between the United Kingdom and the rising nations of Asia and the Middle East. As I see it, it is inevitable and good that our relations should be redefined in this way. But in itself this seems to me to be an incomplete step which raises at least as many questions as it solves.
Some of these questions are Commonwealth questions, and there are two in particular that I want to put to the Foreign Secretary. The right hon. Gentleman has no doubt noticed that Mr. Nehru made some rather critical remarks about this Pact in a speech in his Parliament which, but for the newspaper strike, would doubtless have attracted much more attention than it has done.
I take it that the right hon. Gentleman went through the normal process of consultation and keeping all other Commonwealth countries, including India, informed as we came to the point of adhering to this particular Pact. The other point is whether or not, as a result

of the Pact, we are entering into specific treaty relations with Pakistan, because Pakistan already has a pact with Iraq. Now we too have this Pact with Iraq, and I should like to know if there is a juridical tie-up between these two agreements, because these matters are important to Commonwealth relations.
The main question which I think is raised by this Pact is that it is only a partial solution of the very difficult and almost intractable problems of the Middle East, and, because it is only a partial solution, to some extent it makes these problems more difficult. The Middle East is the Achilles' heel of Commonwealth defence. That area is absolutely vital to the Commonwealth, and yet it is an area the defence of which is tending to be more and more neglected because of the increasing concern of each Commonwealth country with its own regional area defence, which is situated elsewhere rather than in the Middle East.
In the, old days, Australia and New Zealand used to regard the Middle East as their front line, but nowadays they regard Singapore as being their front line. Canada has always rather withdrawn from Middle Eastern problems, and normally, when there are Commonwealth discussions about the Middle East, Canada makes that clear by appearing as an observer rather than as an actual participant.
Most important of all, of course, is the fact that the United Kingdom, by the new commitment of four divisions to the Continent of Europe, has very greatly reduced its own capacity for sending forces very rapidly to the Middle East. Indeed, of the Commonwealth countries today, one might say that only South Africa and Pakistan have a natural interest in the Middle East, where they would automatically send forces for their own defence, because it is for them a flank area or one which they regard as being strategically necessary.
It is because of this development of Commonwealth regional strategy that a vacuum has arisen since the war in the Middle East. It is a power vacuum, and, like nature, dictators abhor a vacuum. It is important that we should not leave this power vacuum in this part of the world. The only way in which it can be filled up is by this sort of pact, by increasing


local strength within the area. It would, of course, be better if we could achieve this in a big arrangement, but all attempts at Middle Eastern defence organisation and so forth, which both we and the present Government have tried to get, have broken down. There is also the problem of Arab-Israel relations.
Therefore, we must do things that will raise the local strength of the area, and Commonwealth forces can only be reinforcements and cannot any longer be a front-line permanent element in the defence of that area. This Pact is a step in that direction, but it does raise some very grave problems, with which I hope the Foreign Secretary will be able to deal.
It raises both political and military problems. It deals with one section only of the Middle East. But the Middle East is strategically an indivisible area, and all the various parts are inter-dependent, so that we cannot deal with it piecemeal. We must complete the whole of the process begun by this Pact.
This Pact by itself, and by its first effects, will disconnect the various parts of the Middle East which have to be connected strategically. We hear a lot about the northern tier of defence, but if we really had to rely on the northern tier alone, we should be running very grave risks. It is a very thin line of defence, a line that turns entirely on the hinge of Turkey.
If Turkey went, the whole line would go, and the northern tier is a line of a kind to which it is very difficult to bring sea power to bear, which is one of our main ways of reinforcing the Middle East. If we have only a northern tier of defence we are in very great difficulties. I am not opposed to a northern tier, but I am sure that it must be completed, for if it is incomplete we are left in danger.
Next, we must consider the effect of this Pact on Arab-Israel relations. This, of course, is the fundamental source of the weakness of the West in the Middle East. The Middle East is a single area, and we must treat it as such, and it remains, therefore, one of our prime interests to secure an Arab-Israel reconciliation.
There are some policies which are advocated to get Arab-Israel reconciliation, but which we cannot pursue. One such is the suggestion that we should

bring pressure to bear on the Arabs to agree with Israel or upon Israel to agree with the Arabs. That seems to me to be a policy which is old-fashioned, and based on the idea that we can force the Arabs or other countries in the Middle East to do the things we want. The attempt would do more harm than good.
I have fairly recently been in the Arab States, and I hope soon to visit Israel. There is no immediate prospect of agreement between the Arab States and Israel, and we have to accept that. Attempts to force them together would drive them further apart. We must have as our longterm policy the aim of securing a reconciliation between these two States, for the short-term prospect is not good.
Therefore, our policy should have as its long-term objective this reconciliation between Israel and the Arab States. We should keep an equal balance of friendship and help between the Arab States and Israel. We must say that we cannot make a choice between the Arab States and Israel in such a way that this involves us in enmity with the other. We must remain equal friends with both. There is no other way of helping to bring about an ultimate reconciliation, and, in the meantime, to preserve as much peace and stability as is possible in the Middle East.
The rôle of the United Kingdom is vital in this. The Tripartite Declaration is very nearly a dead letter, for both the United States and France have pointedly refrained from giving the sort of reaffirmations and interpretations of the Tripartite Declaration as those which the Foreign Secretary has given on behalf of this country. It has almost become a United Kingdom declaration in which we have made it clear what we mean by the Tripartite Declaration. The solution of the trouble in the Middle East turns upon us, therefore, more than on any other great Power.
We cannot deny that this Agreement disturbs relationships between Israel and the Arab States. It is no good making assuring statements about it, saying that it should not do so. In fact, it does disturb relations between Israel and the Arab States. Following the Suez Pact, it is quite inevitable that Israel should be worried about these developments. I am sure that Israel understands our interests and why we are taking these steps, and that she is not suspicious of


us, but I am equally sure that the Agreement has disturbed those relationships.
As my right hon. Friend said, it is very important that, to complete the step which is being taken today, we should seriously explore the possibilities of establishing a similar bilateral arrangement between ourselves and Israel. I should like to go further and say that we should explore the possibilities of establishing a base in Israel—of course, with the consent of Israel, for all this would depend on her consent. That would have a stabilising effect on the Middle East and would fit very properly into our pattern of defence in the Middle East.
I do not know whether the right hon. Gentleman will feel that it is too dangerous to go into that question today. If he did think so, I should understand. But I hope that the Government are thinking of completing this process in that way, and I hope that the Foreign Secretary can say something about it.
To conclude, I think that this Agreement is good and is to be approved, but only if we regard it as a first step and if we press on to restore and redress the balance in the Middle East which this Agreement, although a good step, must by its very nature disturb. It is only if we go forward to complete this work that this will be a good step which can be wholeheartedly supported in the House.

4.53 p.m.

Mr. Walter Elliot: The right hon. Member for Smethwick (Mr. Gordon Walker) referred to this Agreement as disturbing further relations in the Middle East, particularly those between this country and Israel. Surely he is in error. It was the Pact between Turkey and Iraq and the exchange of letters which disturbed those relations and, if anything, this Agreement should, and I hope will, do something to restore them. It will lessen the state of tension. It may be that it will be necessary for it to be followed by further steps, but it is certainly not the first step in disturbing relations. It is the first step towards relieving the tension, and I think it will generally be so regarded.

Mr. H. Morrison: I gather that the right hon. Gentleman is referring to the main Pact between Turkey and Iraq.
This accession adopts the whole of that Pact vis-à-vis the United Kingdom and takes nothing away. I can be corrected if I am wrong. The only point on which Her Majesty's Government had reservations was the exchange of letters between the two Governments, and this, the Foreign Secretary said, was outside the Pact. I cannot see where the United Kingdom's accession modifies the original Pact.

Mr. Elliot: Then the right hon. Gentleman and I are obviously at variance.
If an arrangement is reached between two people who are not friends of mine, and subsequently someone who is a friend of mine accedes to it, specifically dissociating himself from the unfriendly references, and that is accepted by the other two people. surely that diminishes and does not intensify the hostile or perilous nature of the agreement previously reached. I am sure that that is so and that it will be so regarded by our friends in all parts of the world. We are regarded as a modifying factor in this Pact and not as an intensifying factor, and I therefore start from that point—that this is not an intensification of tension but a step towards a diminution of tension.
The right hon. Member for Smethwick referred to the important fact that we in the United Kingdom are very closely concerned with this area. He spoke of Pakistan and South Africa as being the only two countries with a natural strategic interest in this region. I think that is rather fine-drawn.

Mr. Gordon Walker: I do not want to be misunderstood. I meant that they were the only people who would have troops available and who would naturally send them to that area. Other Commonwealth countries would send their troops to other regions.

Mr. Elliot: I demur even from that.
I think that to suggest that the United Kingdom would have a strategic interest, but would not have troops available for such a vital area, whereas South Africa would, is rather an unreal attitude. Certainly if I were either Israel or Iraq I should prefer to know that the United Kingdom had acceded to a Pact of this kind rather than to know that South Africa or even Pakistan had acceded to


it. Do not let us underestimate our force, or the importance of the accession of the United Kingdom to a document such as this. It is a step of first-class importance. I think we shall have the power, as we certainly have the will, to back our signature, if necessary, by more active steps.
It is remarkable—and no comment has been made on this—that the original Pact contains an earnest of the enormous importance which we exercise in that area in that the original Pact between Turkey and Iraq,
Done in Duplicate at Bagdad this second day …
of a period which is certainly not according to our chronology, is prefaced by the statement that the Pact has been signed in Arabic, Turkish and English,
all three texts being equally authentic except in the case of doubt when the English text shall prevail.

That seems to be a remarkable example of the influence of the United Kingdom. After all, it was the United Kingdom—indeed England—which invented the English language. I think that reference in the Pact is a remarkable tribute to the importance which these countries attach to the whole body of cultural and of military influence which this country commands.

Mr. R. H. S. Crossman: Is the right hon. Gentleman suggesting that because the Pact is also written in English it proves the influence of Great Britain? John Foster Dulles also speaks English, and he might have had something to do so with it.

Mr. Elliot: I do not wish to chop logic with the hon. Gentleman. If he thinks Mr. John Foster Dulles invented the English language, he is a little out of date.
This is a matter of interpretation. I think that the hon. Member will find that the more authentic interpretation of English comes from documents in this country—or at any rate, they are at least equally authentic to any document in America. I do not think he will deny that the Oxford Dictionary is at least as authentic as Webster's Dictionary in the interpretation of any international documents.
But that leads me away from the important point. The interest of the United Kingdom in this region is ancient and historical, and is also alive today. It seems to me, as a matter of fact, that the importance of the document is more in the emphasis and reinforcement of our relations with Turkey than in the reorganisation of our relations with Iraq.
I do not under-estimate the importance of the reorganisation of our relations with Iraq, for there is one Article in the Agreement of very great importance which ought to be emphasised, and to which attention has not yet been drawn—the right of this country to assemble stores in Iraq and to have them visited by our Forces whenever we desire. That is a very important provision, especially in these days of dispersal. The possibilities of dispersal under that provision are significant, and from a military point of view I regard that as a very important provision.
But close association of this country with Turkey in the military problems of the Middle East is of paramount and transcending importance. The right hon. Member for Smethwick spoke of this being a thin tier, but I do not agree with him. This is the backbone of the whole of the structure of defence in that region. The accession of Greece and Turkey to N.A.T.O. was an event of cardinal importance. It was the entry of the old Byzantine Empire again into world affairs. What we call Turkey, or Asia Minor, has, after all, been historically associated with the West for far longer than it has been associated with the East.
The articles in the Turko-Iraq Pact to which we have acceded, providing for co-operation in security and defence
which may form the subject of special agreements…
seem to me, therefore, to constitute a position of very great importance indeed. In fact, we are resuming the march up country, with which some of us have been familiar, in construing the Anabasis of Xenophon since our schoolboy days. It was from the very region of Iraq into the very region of Turkey that that great march of the Greeks took place. The association of these regions is no new thing. It is an ancient and historical fact, and that is why it is so important for us fully to appreciate its bearing on our affairs this afternoon.
Speakers on both sides of the House have referred to the difficulty which may arise in the case of Israel. The right hon. Gentleman the ex-Foreign Secretary spoke about that, and my hon. and gallant Friend for East Grinstead (Sir R. Clarke) also referred to it. It may well be that further provision will need to be made to obviate any sense of insecurity, because it may well be that Israel at this moment has an impression of insecurity, of having been left on one side.
I should have thought, however, that this difficulty would have been tackled better in trying to get round Article 5 of the Turco-Iraq Pact, by which a State cannot accede unless it is fully recognised by both contracting parties, rather than merely by ad hoc arrangements. If nothing better can be done, then no doubt some ad hoc arrangement should be come to. What can be done under this Pact is that any country which is fully recognised can accede, and obviously it would be better to secure full recognition of Israel by both contracting parties than to come to an ad hoc arrangement.

Mr. Shinwell: That is the point. The Pact provides for the complete exclusion of Israel simply because the contracting parties, certainly on one side—an Arab State—decline to accede to the recognition of Israel. Therefore, there is only one alternative left; that is a bilateral arrangement with Israel.

Mr. Elliot: But that was dealt with by the Minister of State for Foreign Affairs. He said that the relations between these two Powers have nothing to do with the relations between this country and Israel, and that this Pact does not weaken the Tripartite Agreement or militate against the reinforcement or clarification of the Tripartite Agreement. The point put forward has already been fully met by the Government spokesman.

Mr. Shinwell: No. The point has been presented, and I gather that the right hon. Gentleman does not disagree with it. All that we require now is an assurance from the Foreign Secretary that the Government would consider the proposition with a view to its implementation.

Mr. Elliot: No, that is not the point.
The right hon. Gentleman is in error. He asked if Israel was excluded, and the Minister of State said that it was not

excluded. He said that it was not excluded from any relations with this country. I do not wish the right hon. Gentleman to cast any doubts upon the validity or strength of the Tripartite Agreement. He does a disservice to Israel in so doing. This does not weaken the Tripartite Agreement. It does not weaken our relations with Israel. Anyone who casts doubt upon that is, I repeat, doing a great disservice to Israel, and in a most sensitive part, namely, by raising doubt in the Arab States as to whether the Tripartite Agreement is valid.
The Minister of State has already given an assurance on that point, and I am sure that further assurances will be forthcoming in so far as they can be made without casting doubt upon the existing document. [Interruption.] It is perhaps a besetting sin of mine that I am apt to turn a speech into a conversation. I beg hon. Members opposite not to lead me further along that path, or it will make my remarks take rather longer than I would wish them to do.
It may be necessary, as I was saying, to make an ad hoc arrangement, but the comprehensive arrangement would be much more suitable. It was said by the right hon. Member for Smethwick that it would be impossible to force the two countries together. It would be impossible to force the Arab States and Israel together, but I do not think it is too soon to suggest that some approaches might be made between them. I think that the state of tension along the Gaza strip is very high indeed and might lead to very great difficulties. I would say, greatly daring, that we ourselves, and Israel, and the Arab States, must consider positive steps towards ending that tension. Those steps must be directed towards dealing with frontiers, refugees and co-operation.
On these three points, it should be possible to get some conversations going. Some statement and some approach should be made on the subject of refugees. The refugee problem is a festering sore there, and it is useless for us in this Assembly merely to shut our eyes and avert our faces from it. It is there and ought to be dealt with.
The armistice frontiers are most unsatisfactory, and they will need to be regulated. An Egyptian spokesman has already made a positive suggestion, although I think of a very sweeping


nature—the cession of the Negev. It is a suggestion which I would not myself support. But at any rate, if a man is willing to formulate his demands, it is possible to take some step towards discussing them. The difficulty is that each side is standing apart and taking no step whatever towards diminishing the claims which it might possibly advance—this is particularly so in the case of refugees—and consequently the tension does not diminish. It increases.

Mr. Thomas Reid: Is the right hon. Gentleman suggesting that Britain should take the matter out of the hands of the United Nations, with its staffs on the spot, and that we should try to settle the dispute between Israel and the Arabs? Should we not leave the problem to those who created it, the United Nations?

Mr. Elliot: If this country always waited for somebody else to do something, the world would be in a very much worse state than it is. I think there are times when, in spite of the difficulty, it is necessary, as the French say, to put one's finger between the bark and the tree. If one can tear the bark off the tree, so much the better. If on the other hand, the bark pinches one's fingers, it is just too bad. We cannot leave this matter to the slow, cumbrous, and sometimes intentionally obstructive, machinery of the United Nations. Britain will, either formally or informally—preferably informally—have to begin to consider whether these matters can be softened and ameliorated.
This Pact gives us a starting point. That is why I say it is a movement towards diminishing and not increasing the tension. There is fear and suspicion on the part of the Arab States as well. It is well known that the Arab States fear a march inland of the Israeli State. They say that this congested area is bound to break out. They say that there is an armed force in a state of high efficiency and that it might begin to make an armed incursion into the Jordan Valley or elsewhere.
I have had opportunities of discussing this matter with Israeli statesmen of high standing, such as the late Dr. Weitzman. He regarded any march inland by Israel as perilous to his own country. He had

in mind a much more traditional form of State, which has been so long and so well known in the Mediterranean, the Sea States, cities that face to the sea, of which the Mediterranean provides us with a dozen examples, Venice being, perhaps, the noblest and most renowned. There are, however, dozens of other examples which could be quoted.
I am sure that in so far as Israel attempts to become a land State she will enormously weaken her chance of ultimate survival. She is a small unit afloat on the great currents of the world. The more she looks to territorial conquest the more dangerous and the weaker her position will become. I think that the more far-sighted of the Israeli statesmen recognise that. That is a second point from which one can start. The natural interests of Israel do not lie towards the land. They lie towards the sea, and they lie naturally in a closer association with the great sea Powers, of which, even in the Mediterranean, we still are one.
I put forward that as a suggestion because I would agree that this is a starting point, not a finishing point. The discussion between ourselves and the Arab world cannot be merely one-sided. It must be a discussion between all the Powers in the Middle East. I think we have a great opportunity which it would be wrong for us to neglect, and dangerous to neglect; dangerous both to our own interests and to the interests of the other countries in that region. I am certain that the organisation which is going on in that part of the world is part of the inevitable organisation of wider and wider regional governments, and of arrangements leading to the power of physical intervention.
I do not think we can run the world, as it is now, on resolutions. I think we shall need increasingly to have the power of a police force of some kind or another; working by agreement with the countries in which it operates: but working. I think that this Pact is a step towards that. I believe, therefore, that my right hon. Friend is greatly to be complimented on the steps which he has taken, and I hope that the House will support him.

5.12 p.m.

Mr. R. H. S. Crossman: I think I can follow the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Kelvingrove (Mr. Elliot) on one particular, namely,


that if we leave everything to the United Nations we shall not have a policy in the Middle East. I cannot, however, follow the right hon. Gentleman in his 'argument that this Pact will be the beginning of the solution of the difficulties of the Arab-Jewish world. I am afraid that I shall have to indicate how, so far from this being so, it will aggravate the difficulties of solving that problem.
First, I would consider the Pact from the point of view of British relations with the Arab world and defence in that area. I am surprised that up to now in this debate nobody has discussed the remarkable fact that this Pact, which has been welcomed as strengthening our position in the Middle East, has actually split the Arab world from top to bottom. I suppose discretion is the reason why no one has mentioned Egypt and Egyptian reactions to this Pact.
I shall be interested to hear what the Foreign Secretary will have to say about what he thinks is to be the future of the Arab League, which, I believe, is his one original contribution to international organisation. He launched the Arab League in the last year of the Second World War. This Pact has just about knocked it out. I should like to hear what is the change in British foreign policy which has led to this radical rethinking—to say the least of it—about our relations with the Arab States.
If I understand the right hon. Gentleman aright, when he signed the Agreement with Egypt his idea was that the basis of our relationship with the Arab States was to be through Egypt. Indeed, I think he spent no fewer than twelve months delaying the Anglo-Egyptian Agreement to get Turkey included in that Agreement in order to improve the relations of Egypt and Turkey. Relations between Egypt and Turkey have been undoubtedly made a great deal worse by the signature of the Turco-Iraqi Pact and our adherence to it.
The very essence of the Anglo-Egyptian Agreement was, as the Foreign Secretary himself has said, that the Egyptians were not formally committed to a Western alliance, because they resented the idea of a military alliance. They wanted to be left free to be friendly with the West without being joined in formal alliances. Now we have the new Treaty with Iraq which is a formal alliance.
I happened to see Colonel Nasser on the evening of the day this news broke—the news that a treaty was to be signed.

Sir A. Eden: Ours or the first?

Mr. Crossman: The first, the Turco-Iraqi Pact. It was some weeks ago.
Colonel Nasser expressed himself very frankly on the subject of the Treaty. I dare say that the Foreign Secretary will think Egyptian views of the Pact at least as relevant to the debate as those of Nuri As-Said. The effect of what Colonel Nasser had to say was that Nuri As-Said had been a stooge of the British now for twenty or twenty-five years.

Sir A. Eden: That is both offensive and quite untrue.

Mr. Crossman: I am reporting what was said. I would point out, with great respect to the Foreign Secretary, what Nuri As-Said has actually done. He had an election, and before the election he suppressed every single party in Iraq with any independence whatsoever. Now the Pact has been ratified "by acclamation" in the Iraqi Assembly—but one can hardly say that there was a debate of any genuine character.

Mr. M. Philips Price: Colonel Nasser did not do the same?

Mr. Crossman: When we talk about form of democracy, we should consider the difference between Colonel Nasser and Nuri As-Said. Colonel Nasser rose to power in a revolution against Western imperialism. Nuri As-Said is in power because he has served Western imperialism faithfully over the last fifteen years.

Sir A. Eden: Iraq, more than any other country in the Middle East, has spent money on developments in an endeavour to improve the conditions of her people. I think we ought to say that, because the fact that a man has been our friend is no reason why he should be attacked.

Mr. Crossman: I am sorry that the right hon. Gentleman should have adverted to a quite different subject. What I said—and what I repeat—has nothing to do with development at all. It was that everybody in the Middle East knows that Nurli As-Said is tied to the West. It makes no difference, therefore, whether he signs another scrap of paper


or not. He suppressed the opposition in Iraq, but an overwhelming number of Iraqi had indicated that they were against the Western alignment, and that means that there is a certain instability about this Pact. Do not let us over-emphasise the value of this gorgeous diplomatic success.
I do not really blame the Foreign Secretary for this Pact, because he was not concerned with it. The conclusion of the Turco-Iraqi Pact was not owing to British initiative but to American initiative, and the man properly to be congratulated on this Pact is Mr. Dulles, because this is the second of Mr. Dulles's achievements in the Middle East. My right hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham, South (Mr. H. Morrison) laughs at this.

Mr. H. Morrison: I was only scratching my head.

Mr. Crossman: I think I heard the Foreign Secretary say, "This is ludicrous." Does he really deny that the plan of the Americans, which was not an unsensible plan, was to get an alliance linking Greece, Turkey, Persia, Pakistan and Iraq, and that it cut across the plan of the British, which was to work on the basis of friendship with Egypt?
I should say, therefore, that on the whole the man who got what he wanted was the American Secretary of State. The Americans believe more than we do in this type of straight military assistance to Arab States. The Foreign Secretary knows that the Americans are lavish with their military aid. I was told that there are to be four Iraqi divisions as a result of this American assistance, and that they are to form the cadres of that great army which is to defend the Middle East against the Russian invasion.
I hope the Foreign Secretary is as sceptical as I am about whether an Arab army will think that its first objective is to defend the Middle East against Russia. Anybody who knows the Middle East knows perfectly well that if ever there were a Russian invasion Iraq would make her peace with Russia as quickly as she possibly could. And I would not blame her. Iraq would not dream of using this army for such a dangerous purpose. She wants it for one purpose and for one purpose only. The one purpose for which

she wants it is the second round against Israel. We must all know that if we connive at a Pact of this sort we are conniving at the rebuilding of an army which Iraq will use, if she uses it at all—I hope she will not—for the second round.
We are told by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Kelvingrove that this is the first step towards improvement in the Middle East, but let us see where the Pact began. It began with pulling Turkey out of her position of neutrality as between the Arabs and Israel. It is quite untrue to say that before Turkey was the enemy of Israel. Turkey and Israel have had extremely good relations. The first effect of this Pact has been to break the good relations between Israel and Turkey, because, in acceding to the Pact, Turkey has now agreed with the Arab position, that Israel's present frontiers should not be recognised but only the partitioned frontiers, which are 2,000 square miles fewer than the existing frontiers.
So, in replying to the right hon. Gentleman, I would say that I do not think that the best way of starting a general improvement in relations is to break the only decent relations between a Moslem country and Irael, and put Turkey into bad relations with Israel.

Mr. Elliot: I think the hon. Gentleman should decide whether he is now discussing the Turco-Iraqi Treaty or the British Pact. We would get on far faster if he would determine that matter. It is all very well for him to refer to the Turco-Iraqi Treaty, but I was discussing the Pact which the British Government had made, and which is the subject before us this afternoon.

Mr. Crossman: The right hon. Gentleman does not seem to realise that what we are doing is acceding to the Turco-Iraqi Treaty and that the basic thing whose value we have to discuss today is that Turco-Iraqi Treaty and whether Britain should accede to it or not. Clearly, when we are discussing the Pact in the House we must discuss the value of the original Treaty and whether by acceding to it we shall really improve relations, as the right hon. Gentleman said we were doing.
In replying, all I am saying is that what we are doing is acceding to a Pact which


broke the relationship between Israel and the one Moslem country in the Middle East which was relatively detached from this feud between Israel and her neighbours. I am arguing that that is not the first step to improving relations.

Mr. Elliot: This is rather important. Does the hon. Gentleman seriously contend that the accession of a country which is already a member of the Tripartite Declaration to this Pact has intensified the anti-Israel position, or is even supporting a supposedly anti-Israel point of view?

Mr. Crossman: I would get on faster if I were allowed to develop my speech, but that was the point I was coming to next. My answer is, "Yes." I should like to explain why. The point has been put by several of my hon. Friends, and also by my right hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham, South. We are in treaty relations now with Egypt, Iraq and Jordan. In the case of Iraq, the Treaty was running out. We have decided, instead of renewing the old Treaty, to accede to a new Pact.
I would suggest to the Foreign Secretary that in the Middle East people are not quite as nice-minded as in this House, and the interpretation put upon this Pact is that it offers support for the Arab point of view against Israel. If the Foreign Secretary had simultaneously signed a treaty of alliance with Israel the thing would be entirely different, but the right hon. Gentleman has been approached by Israel month after month and year after year asking for any form of political association, and for three years the right hon. Gentleman has refused to negotiate any form of political understanding with Israel outside the tripartite Agreement which is binding on both sides.
Therefore, he has inevitably aroused suspicion. For three years he refuses to negotiate any form of military understanding with Israel and now he negotiates a brand new one with Iraq under which Iraq has grabbed Turkey and pulled her to the Arab side. One has only to go to Israel to discover what interpretation is put there on what has happened. I also think that any Arab country would also tell anyone investigating the position that they were very pleased at what they are getting—a completely one-sided relationship between this country and the

Arabs and no treaty or relationship between this country and the Jews.

But that is not all. Under this Pact we are rearming Iraq. We are to create four divisions, and the Iraquis are openly saying that they intend to use them for the second round against Israel. That is a fact. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] I thought that that was common knowledge.

Sir Robert Boothby: The hon. Gentleman is saying that the Iraqi divisions are being sponsored by the United States of America.

Mr. Crossman: Yes.

Sir R. Boothby: Does the hon. Gentleman seriously think that the United States of America, if they created these divisions, would sanction their use in this way?

Mr. Crossman: With great respect to the hon. Gentleman, I would not have believed that the British Government would sanction the use of the Arab Legion against the Jews, until it actually happened, and Jerusalem was bombarded. The Arab Legion, led by British officers, went into the kill against the Jews. I attacked my Government at the time on the subject, and I have a right to point to it now. Men and women in the Middle East have had experience of this kind of thing. They have known that happen in the past. The Western Powers look on so calmly, so smoothly and make all kinds of assurances. Then, when the terrible fact of war comes, one country is left virtually undefended and the Western Powers stand and watch an attempt to wipe it out. That is what happened in 1948 and, therefore, the House cannot—

Mr. Elliot: The hon. Member is entitled to attack his own Government over that. But he cannot attack ours.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Sir Charles MacAndrew): We cannot have two hon. Members on their feet at the same time.

Mr. Crossman: I have given way a great deal, and, anyway, there was nothing in what the right hon. Gentleman was saying. He was being offensive.
In the Middle East, people remember what happened in 1948. The Jews remember it regretfully: the Arabs remember it extremely hopefully. They say, "If only we had been allowed ammunition at that time and allowed to


go after them, we should have pulled it off. "Therefore, they look at our policy in a slightly different way.
So, first of all, we have the Pact. Then we have the rearming of the Arab States and next we have the Arab embargo. We have a complete trade embargo during a period of armistice about which there is no protest by the Western world. Finally, and most important of all, we have the refugees. They are being systematically used to maintain a psychological state of war between Israel and the Arabs; and the funds which enable those refugees to be used for this psychological warfare purpose are largely contributed by Her Majesty's Government.
When I last went to Jordan I was appalled to find U.N.R.R.A. officials saying openly, "Of course, we cannot resettle these refugees. It would upset the Arab Governments and the British and the Americans will not let us do that." U.N.R.R.A. has now become the organisation which is used to keep refugees as refugees, to keep the war spirit. The U.N.R.R.A. organisation is used for that purpose by the Arab States with the connivance of Her Majesty's Government.
The Foreign Secretary looks surprised. I will give him one example. Just outside Jericho there is an U.N.R.R.A. camp in which there are 38,000 Arab refugees. Just four miles the other side of Jericho an Arab has sought to do some resettlement. He is a friend of mine and I am sure the Foreign Secretary knows him, Musa el Alami. I visited him. I saw 1,000 acres with water flowing because he had dug the wells. I saw where 1,200 refugees were working, where 100 orphan boys were doing a job. It was the finest thing I saw in all Jordan.
Not a penny came from U.N.R.R.A. for that man, not a penny from Technical Aid, not a penny from economic assistance. And I was told by the British that it would not help him to be supported openly by us because we are so unpopular out there. Because he is trying to resettle the refugees, he is a marked man; and he is a marked man because the British and American Governments connive at this exploitation of human misery.

Sir A. Eden: I really must protest. Successive Governments have given support to these refugees. Successive Govern-

ments, of whatever party, in this country have worked their hardest and done their utmost to try to get a settlement. We cannot compel the Arabs to settle these people if they will not do it. We have done everything in our power, and to indict the British Government for inhumanity, and to indict his fellow British subjects, is, on the part of the hon. Gentleman, a most discreditable thing to do.

Mr. Crossman: I am very sorry, but I cannot possibly withdraw a single word I have said, for this reason. Of course, we provided the money, but I am saying that the only way to stop this exploitation of misery is to cease to provide the money unless resettlement follows. If we give the money without any conditions, resettlement will never take place—and we all know it. The Jews know it. The Arabs know it.
I do not blame the Arabs for exploiting the British and Americans. I do not blame them for keeping the refugees as refugees. They are fighting a war against the Jews. I blame us for not understanding what the effect of our action is. If, for five years, we give millions of pounds and permit every attempt at resettlement to be sabotaged, the Arab will draw the conclusion that, fundamentally, we are conniving at what he is doing. So this seems to me to be the situation: no treaties with the Jews, three treaties with Arab countries; heavy rearmament of Arab countries; refugees left for five years, with no settlement.
If I were a Jew in Israel I would be alarmed at that and would say to the British and American Governments, "You are conniving at our slow strangulation. We are being besieged by the world around us and you, the British and American Governments, are permitting the siege." For the armistice is being violated by the Arabs. They do not even pretend to stand by the armistice. They say there is not one. They say there is a state of war. Therefore, when we sign a Pact of alliance with Iraq, we are signing a Pact of alliance with a country which overtly says, "We are in a state of war with Israel and we are proud to be so." And not only do we sign an alliance with that country. We agree to rearm her and to train her airmen too. In so doing, I assert that we are conniving at the state of war, whether


the Foreign Secretary is shocked to hear it or not.
I do not want to say only what is wrong with our policy. I agree with my right hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham, South that it could be rectified by one action. It could be rectified if, instead of refusing the Israeli for three years, when they asked for some form of political treaty, we had simultaneously, when we negotiated this Pact with Iraq, announced a completely complementary defensive military alliance with Israel. If that one thing were done, everything I have said today would be unfair. But it has not been done.
For three years the Foreign Secretary has refused to do it. I want to know why. If my allegations are unfair, if he really is equal in his love and affection for Jews and Arabs, why cannot he do equally for the Jews what he is doing for Iraq and what he has done for Egypt and Jordan? Why cannot he show his strict impartiality? I know why. Because if he showed that impartiality, two or three Arab Governments would probably fall. There would be a devastating effect in the Arab world if we were really impartial between Arab and Jew. They reckon on our not being impartial. They reckon on our conniving, and if they found they could not reckon on our conniving, then the bluff of certain politicians in the Arab capitals would have been called and they would fall.
Have we really to spend our time propping up tottering and corrupt Governments in the Arab world? Is that what this Pact is for? If so, let us know it. Let the Foreign Secretary reply this evening, "Of course, my dear friend, I was just delaying this announcement for this precise and proper occasion." If this great secret will be revealed to us this evening, I will withdraw every charge I have made. But I know that the right hon. Gentleman will not announce it this evening. I know that he is not prepared even to consider such a pact, and, as long as he is not prepared to consider it, I have come to the conclusion that the type of policy we had in the 'thirties, the type of policy we had under the Labour Government, is still there today. It is a policy which has made it impossible for Jews to live in Israel without having to fight for their lives.
I do not like quoting from a paper with which I am closely associated, but there was one letter published in last week's "New Statesman" which was extremely interesting. It was written by a friend of mine, Lieut.-Col. Shaul Ramati. He is one of the most distinguished, one of the soberest and one of the most moderate soldiers in the Israeli Army. To show that some of the things I say do not sound so absurd on the spot as they may sound here, I will read what Lieut.-Col. Ramati, who was the Jewish representative on the Mixed Armistice Commission, said about our joining the Turco-Iraqi Pact:
The sense of isolation after the signing of the Turco-Iraqi pact, and the feeling of having been entirely ignored, except in a most negative way. in the negotiations leading up to it, forced Israeli opinion to the conclusion that to maintain its security, Israel had only itself to rely upon. This feeling was reinforced by the West's reluctance to give a firm guarantee to protect Israel's frontiers against Arab aggression, inadequate though this would he as a 'balance' to arms shipments to the Arab States. In such circumstances, U.N. condemnations and adverse world public opinion can do but little to wean Israel away from self-reliance. It is even quite conceivable that, before a certain stage of unbalance is reached, the choice before Israel might be peace or a shooting war now—however unfavourable the circumstances—or certain destruction in a year's time. The lesson of Czechoslovakia's surrender of the Sudetenland for ' the common good' in 1938, and its destruction in 1939, is still fresh in our minds. Though there is no one with influence in Israel who favours retaliation, there is also no one who does not believe that at a certain stage it becomes inevitable.
I regard those as carefully chosen, balanced and extremely serious words. I regret the fact that British policy in the Middle East has never granted justice until violence has been used or threatened. That is a fact which every Arab and every Jew knows. The Jews know that there may come a point when they have to use violence to bring Britain and America to their senses. They look back over the record of 20 years and they remember. I say to the Foreign Secretary that if he leaves the Jewish frontiers as they are today, if he leaves the impression that British and Americans are conniving at the Arab siege of Israel, he should not blame the Jews if they turn to violence. It is a tragic thing. They have an army which can go to Damascus, to Suez, to Beirut or to the Jordan at any moment they like in the next five years.

Mr. Philips Price: Not to Amman.

Mr. Crossman: My hon. Friend says, "Not to Amman." I do not think that that is the view of the British officers in charge of the Arab Legion.
The fact is—I say it quite openly—that today the Jews have great military power and a great temptation to abuse it. It would, of course, be a fantastic abuse of their military power to use it to smash the Arabs. But that abuse may be forced upon them by the inaction and lethargy of great Powers who permit the evil to go on festering without anything being done about it. If I felt that the Pact with Iraq could in any way reduce the evil I should welcome it.
I conclude, therefore, by saying, "Please sign a treaty of alliance with Israel as well as with the Arab States." It will safeguard us against wild-cat Israeli adventures to which they may be driven by their sense of isolation. It will prove that the Foreign Secretary really does want to be fair-minded between the two. Therefore, I hope that when we come to the end of the debate he will end his speech about the Turco-Iraqi alliance and our adherence to it with a curt announcement, "To prove my fairness and my integrity, and to disprove the violent calumniator, the hon. Member for Coventry, East, I announce my willingness to sign a pact with Israel."

5.42 p.m.

Mr. Hugh Fraser: The hon. Member for Coventry, East (Mr. Crossman) has really exceeded himself in both the venom of his remarks about friends of this country and the tautology of his argument, which constantly came round to the same point. I really think that we have at one moment this afternoon listened to some of the pent-up venom of two weeks' unprinted "Sunday Pictorials." It almost seemed that at times the hon. Gentleman was willing to transfer his powers for disruption, now that the Paris Agreements have been signed, from Europe to the Middle East. I have seldom heard from him a speech which has been less constructive or less well thought out.
The series of objections launched by right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite have not done them much credit. The speech of the ex-Foreign Secretary the

right hon. Member for Lewisham, South (Mr. H. Morrison), seemed to be largely concerned, as did much of the speech of the hon. Member for Coventry, East, with the effect of the Pact on Israel.

Mr. Shinwell: Why not?

Mr. Fraser: I really think that something must be wrong when, according to hon. Gentlemen opposite, we find that both Israel and Egypt are equally opposed to it. There seems to be something odd somewhere in their logic. There is something odd about the logic which suggests that Colonel Nasser and Mr. Ben Gurion are both up in arms over it and have, overnight, become allies on the issue. I think that that is exaggeration.
I have made speeches in this House, and shall undoubtedly make more speeches, in favour of the State of Israel, but to suggest, at this stage, that British foreign policy should be inhibited by whether or not a certain party in Israel will win or lose an election is asking too much. That is what the right hon. Gentleman suggested.

Mr. H. Morrison: No, that is not true.

Mr. Fraser: It is.

Mr. Shinwell: Nonsense.

Mr. Fraser: The case can be grossly overstated. After all, who, inside the Middle East, have proved to be the best friends of Israel? Undoubtedly, the Turks. The Turkish exchange of letters with Iraq did not prohibit the continuation of that friendship between Turkey and Israel. What the Pact does—this is perfectly clear—is to inhibit the Israelis from joining the Turco-Israeli defence pact. Equally, it is not likely that the Israelis would be invited to join the Arab League.
I believe that, on the whole, we can look back over ten years of decline and readjustment of British power in the Middle East. The low point which was reached was the low point of Abadan. I believe that we now see a reorganisation of our power there which takes into consideration the mutual interests of ourselves and the Arab and other States. It is no longer, as one hon. Gentleman has said:
Dominion over palm and pine.
It is the mutual interest of ourselves and the States in the Middle East which we


are setting up into systems of friendship and alliance.
There is one point which has rightly been raised by hon. Gentlemen. I agree with other hon. Members that the Tripartite Agreement of 1950 needs some strengthening. I also agree that that is an argument largely apart from what we are discussing.

Mr. Janner: I know that the hon. Gentleman is reasonably disposed towards the interests of Israel in the Middle East, but does he realise that treaties of this nature, without a similar treaty with Israel, and the giving of arms in this enormous manner to the Arab States by both this country and America, make the position of Israel very difficult, if not impossible?

Mr. Fraser: I think that the statement made by the hon. Member for Coventry, East, that four divisions are being prepared, if they be four divisions, for a second round against Israel, is consummate nonsense. If the hon. Member will read the terms of reference of the Agreement, he will see that they speak loudly against it. The very facts that there will be British officers helping in the training, British collaboration, and British bases, and that there is all this argument inside the Pact point against what was put forward by the hon. Member, who has suggested that the whole point of bringing us in was to arm the Iraqis for a second round against Israel.

Mr. Crossman: I want to make clear the point which I made. I only suggested that the Iraqis themselves make it clear that their major military interest is against Israel and not Russia. They have said so in frequent speeches. Secondly, the presence of British officers has not prevented Arab armies from being used against the Israelis in the past. The Arab Legion was used against the Israelis with British officers. It is no good assuring the Israelis that Arab armies will not be used against them again merely because there are British officers in Iraq.

Mr. Fraser: I will not take up that point, because I do not know sufficient about it. The point which the hon. Member raised about the bombardment of Jerusalem may be true or not. However, the difference in this case is that the British officers are from Britain and are not on attachment locally.

Mr. Crossman: So they were in Jordan.

Mr. Fraser: It is clear that we should have far more influence over policy there than we had in respect of the Arab Legion.

Mr. Crossman: Is the hon. Gentleman really telling us that the British control of Iraq in the future will be closer than the control of Jordan that we now have? I am amazed. The Iraqis will not like it very much when they hear of the reassertion of the British Raj in Iraq. Is that really what the hon. Member says?

Mr. Fraser: If the hon. Gentleman looks at the "Manchester Guardian"—if he has been lucky enough to get a copy—he will find that the influence of Britain will probably be larger than it has been in the past in these matters. It stands to reason that if we have a military pact as allies, then we will be more solid as allies than we would be if we were a Power still retaining some of the protecting status we retain at the moment.
I believe that on the main issue we have come back in the Middle East to the twin interests that have always been the interests of British foreign policy there—first, to preserve the area from external attack and, secondly, as far as possible, to maintain internal order. I believe that the Pact goes a considerable way towards helping those ends. From the external point of view, from the point of view of the whole Middle East area—and in that I include both Israel and as far east as Pakistan—an area of order in Iraq will be of benefit. I believe that the greater and wider the areas of order that there can be the more benefit that must accrue to the whole region. I believe that the general Agreement and the special Agreement will be of benefit to that. The Pact will also be of benefit to the internal order of Iraq.
Hon. Gentlemen opposite will recall that in 1948 the late Ernest Bevin signed the Portsmouth Treaty, which proved to be abortive, with the Iraqi Government. That was an effort to get over the problems of the ending of the 1930 Agreement. Hon. Members will remember the misfortunes that befell the Iraqi Government—Abadan, the resignation of Ministers, trouble, shooting, and the collapse of that Government. This Pact is far more surely founded. It is founded on the fact that my right hon. Friend the Foreign


Secretary said that this was a Pact between friends, a Pact between equals.
There is a much firmer regime inside Iraq than the hon. Member for Coventry, East tried to make out. Hon. Gentlemen may recall that the Treaty of 1948 collapsed at a time when the trouble over Israel was just beginning. It happened at a time when bread was costing £200 a ton in Iraq. It happened when there was a weak Government, when there was Communist agitation in Kurdistan, when many things of an untoward character were taking place.
If we look at Iraq today—and I am glad that the hon. Gentleman the Member for Coventry, East, who said such disparaging things about Nuri As-Said, is back in his place—we will see a great improvement over the situation in 1948. One will see an enormous increase in revenue from British oil companies. In 1948, that revenue was about £2 million per annum. This year, or next year, I see from the newspapers, the Iraq Government will be receiving no less than £100 million as oil revenue in addition to the various imports, wages disbursed and other advantages which come from this great industry. As a result one will find that, internally, the Pact will be welcomed by the mass of the people, whether or not there will be free elections, even though some of the extreme papers—the "Tribune" of the day—have been suppressed.
Far more important is the fact that this country today has a very special interest in Iraq. That is why we have gone in to protect and have a treaty with such a country. Treaties are not thrown about the world. Pacts of mutual assistance are not dispensed unless there is some real merit in them. Apart from the question of the Middle East, apart from the question of the northern tier, this area is of immense importance. This is one of the few areas in the world where there is pressure of resources on the population rather than pressure of population on resources. There is a potential of 20 million acres which can be cultivated. It is some of the richest country in the world. The population is five million as compared with a population of 20 million in Egypt with an area of nearly 8½ million acres to cultivate. There are enormous possibilities of oil and other developments.
Here is an area which is richer by nature than Texas ever was, which can be developed and in which we have an interest. Here is an area at the head of the Persian Gulf in which we still maintain areas of importance. Here is a Pact which can be of benefit to the Middle East as a whole by helping to restore order to that area, a Pact which can be of benefit to us who are no longer prepared to activate as rulers over palm and pine but as equal allies, a Pact which will be of real benefit to the people of Iraq and which will help to cement our own proper relations with that rich and important part of the world.

5.57 p.m.

Mr. Thomas Reid: In debates of this kind I always try to get down to the fundamentals and to see what the question is really about. This debate is not about Israel. It is about the cold war, and this Pact is an item in that cold war. We have to judge it in that light. This is an attempt to protect a vast territory from possible attack by Communist imperialism.
Recently a Treaty was signed between Turkey and Pakistan, but there are over 1,500 miles of undefended territories between those two places. That is an enormous gap, and it would not be difficult for Communist soldiers to walk through it. There is nothing to stop them, but this Anglo-Iraq Agreement is an attempt to bridge that gap, to put in solid resistance to Communist imperialism if it tries to invade that part of the Middle East.
I consider that the prime interest of the British Government in the world today is to resist Communist imperialism, to protect our very lives and our liberty, and that is why I am in favour of the Pact. Three or four years ago I pointed out in the House, knowing the Near East and the Middle East, how dangerous the situation was, that there was nothing there to correspond to N.A.T.O. The right hon. Gentleman who is now the Secretary of State for War made speeches in a similar vein. He saw the difficulty, too. I venture to suggest to the Foreign Secretary—it is not really necessary to do so, because he is doing what I want—that his prime duty as Foreign Secretary is to protect this part of the Middle East against Communist imperialism, and his second duty is to protect British interests.
British interests and the larger question of the cold war go together. Nevertheless, I want to stress that British interests as well as the protection of the country against Communist imperialism should be the two primary motives in our Eastern foreign policy today.

I had the honour of giving evidence in writing to the Anglo-American Commission on the Palestine issue in 1947. I stated there quite bluntly that in my opinion the setting up of a Jewish State was unwise and a blunder because we were turning into a hostile area the very places which had the oil, and they are enormously important strategic positions in the Middle East. I condemned the procedure both on the grounds of morality and of expediency, and I do the same thing today.

Mr. George Wigg: Would my hon. Friend say something about morality? He has talked about expediency but, except in passing, he has not yet mentioned morality.

Mr. Reid: If my hon. Friend wishes me to go back to the question of setting up a Jewish State, the question of morality is very simple. It was iniquitous and a blunder to take the best part of Southern Syria from the people who had possessed it for 13 centuries and to hand it over to Jewish immigrants. If that is not immorality, what is?
Again, I talked about Turkey. Turkey has been a valiant little country. The Soviet Union has tried to frighten Turkey several times. It demanded that the Northern part of Turkey should be added to the Soviet Empire. It also tried to get hold of the Straits. On each occasion Turkey valiantly resisted. We often hear talk about our country being bombed out of existence in a future war, but what about poor little Turkey, who is much nearer to Russia? She has held her ground. Even in the days when the Turkish Government were rotten—and they are not now—they always had pluck. They could fight. They are the same today.
On her right flank Turkey is completely unprotected up to date. This Agreement, which was started by Turkey—between Turkey and Pakistan first and then between Turkey and Iraq—is the beginning of defence. I knew that the

old Treaty with Iraq was coming to an end, and recently I asked Questions which I gathered the Foreign Secretary thought inopportune. However, I thought that he was doing well, and I stopped asking the questions, but I knew exactly what was going on, not from the Foreign Office but from other sources.
In addition to protecting an area of vital strategic importance to the world in the cold war, this Pact will also be a mighty deterrent to Russian aggression. In addition to their other commitments—their commitments all round the world wherever resistance like this is set up this makes their task still more formidable. The Minister of State said that this measure was an adequate one for preserving peace in the area. I entirely disagree. This is only a beginning. It is a good beginning, but the measure is not a sufficient protection for the area in question.
I urge him to carry on with the good work. Anyone who knows the Middle Eastern countries can imagine Persia being invaded by Communist Imperialism. Persia is a vast elevated plateau in the north. If any powerful force were in command in the northern part of Persia on that plateau, would this arrangement defend Iraq? No military man would think that it would. Control of that Persian plateau is absolutely necessary for the protection of the whole of the Middle East.

Mr. Nutting: I did not say that these arrangements constituted a completely adequate defence system for the whole Middle East. I said that in my view they adequately measured up to our and Iraq's joint requirements.

Mr. Reid: When the Minister reminds me of the actual words I agree that he is correct and that I am incorrect, but still I disagree with him. The arrangements are not adequate to Iraq's requirements. I am pointing out that we must go further. Now that Persia has a sensible Government, they must be induced to join with us—not merely Persia, but Saudi Arabia and Egypt.
I know the difficulties. I know the Arab States extremely well. I do not think that any Arabs regard me as their foe, but I would say to my Arab friends that they should stop this squabbling about Hashemites and other "ites"—


about those who are descended from the Prophet and those who are not. These questions are of little political importance in the world today. People who are using them are like Nero fiddling while Rome burnt. The necessity is to protect the whole of the Arab States, Persia and the Near East. That will not be achieved by arguments as to which Arab State is the leading State, and so on.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Coventry, East (Mr. Crossman) said, it is true that Egypt refused to join in this arrangement, and therefore the Foreign Secretary very wisely started negotiations with Iraq, the other Arab State. In this vital matter we cannot afford to wait until everybody is satisfied. It was quite right for the Foreign Secretary to go to Iraq. I know Nuri Pasha slightly. I do not know if he is the "tyrant" that the hon. Member for Coventry, East described. I do not think he is; but Nuri Pasha is a world statesman of great ability. He has not got the parochial ideas which unfortunately so many Arabs have. I do not think that he believes in antiquated Arab blood feuds or the like. He is not a parish pump politician. He has done a great job, in my opinion.
Several of my hon. Friends and my right hon. Friend the Member for Smethwick (Mr. Gordon Walker) have said that this arrangement is only a partial solution. I agree, and that is why I urge the Foreign Secretary to do more, and to make it more than a partial solution. I think that it can be done. Apart from inter-Arab jealousies, there is the question of Palestine. This debate is not about Palestine; and the Foreign Secretary must look after world interests and the interests of Britain, even though they cause annoyance and embarrassment to other States.

I agree with my hon. Friends that the Egyptian settlement and this settlement have made the Jews in Palestine nervous. We ought not to stop a policy of protecting the oil of the Middle East because it causes embarrassment to the Jews in Palestine. We cannot model our foreign policy on the opinion of the Jews in Palestine. Why should we? The Jews in Palestine are not members of our Empire.

Mr. Sydney Silverman: Whereas Iraq is.

Mr. Reid: Our job is to look after the world interests in the matter of Communist aggression, and our own vital interests. Whatever treaty we make we are bound to annoy somebody. We must annoy somebody if the treaty is more important than that.
On the other hand, I am entirely in favour of getting peace between the Jew and the Arab. I do not want the row to continue. It is a scourge to the whole of the Middle East and to the defence of the free world against Communist imperialism, and I hope that it may be ended.
For a long time the policy of the Arab States and Israel was one of neutralism. Neutralism is a hopeless policy. I commend to the neutralists the advice of Litvinov, who said that peace is indivisible, and I think he also said that war is indivisible. Anybody who talks about being neutral today is, like Mr. Nehru, talking through his hat. The Arabs are coming out of their neutralism under one great statesman, Nuri Pasha, and there may be others to follow.
This development must be encouraged. The Arab States are in a vitally important position, and they have, in oil, a vitally important ingredient for the running of our country, even in peace-time. We must look after British interests as well as the interests of others. It was suggested that one way of settling this appalling Arab-Israel dispute was that we should enter into one treaty with the Arab States and into another with Israel, and be ready, I suppose, to fight for both. That is an impossible proposition.
We want collective security in the Middle East, but collective security does not consist of having two rival collective security forces ready to spring at each other. What is needed is one force, like the N.A.T.O. force or an alliance of the various States and their forces, in a system of collective security. It is not for we poor British to spend more blood and treasure—and goodness knows we have spent enough in Palestine—and to lose more of our reputation by giving an Army to both sides and helping both to fight. That is not statesmanship.
I have tried to put this debate into what, in my opinion, is the proper perspective. If that is not done, a debate tends to go all awry. This debate is the discussion of an item in the cold war in the defence


of the free world against Communist imperialism. I am glad that our party has agreed to give support to this Pact, which is a first-class Pact, and may lead to bigger things than its immediate consequences.

6.11 p.m.

Mr. Eric Johnson: I agree with a great deal of what has been said by the hon. Member for Swindon (Mr. T. Reid), but I feel that he has reproved me in advance, for my remarks will be concerned mainly with the position of Israel. They will be brief, because much of what I had proposed to say has already been said by the right hon. Member for Lewisham, South (Mr. H. Morrison). I must say that I thought my hon. Friend the Member for Stafford and Stone (Mr. H. Fraser) was a little unkind to the right hon. Gentleman in what he said about his speech.
I welcome this Pact, because I believe it makes a valuable contribution to strengthening the right flank of N.A.T.O. It may do even more. It may have an effect beyond the purely military aspect and help to increase the flow of trade between Iraq and ourselves, because Iraq is far from being an impoverished Middle Eastern country. This is probably wishful thinking, but it may be that it will put us in a better position to restart the flow of oil between the Middle East oilfields and the oil refinery at Haifa.
There is no doubt, however, that this Pact fills Israel with a great deal of alarm, perhaps with undue alarm, for one effect may be that it will awaken the Arab States to the real danger which threatens them from the north, and distract them from the unreal and, I think, imaginary danger which they consider threatens from Israel. I do not believe that Israel has any aggressive intention whatsoever. None the less, the Israelis are undoubtedly very worried. They feel, I think naturally, that this Pact, coming so soon after our Agreement with Egypt, may give the Arab States the impression that Israel has been isolated, and more or less forsaken by the Western Powers.
I am sure that that is not the case, but the Arab States may think it is. It may be that they will be encouraged, not only to make no attempt to reach a settlement with Israel, but rather the reverse, to step

up their aggressive actions along the frontier between Israel and themselves.
Israel is worried about all the arms being supplied to the Arab States under this and other treaties. That is natural, in view of the threatening things which have been said, and the quite open statement by a certain Arab statesman that it is their intention to wipe out the Israelis and drive them into the sea. When the Israelis see all these arms being supplied for an entirely different purpose, they are worried that such arms may be used against them.
I should be grateful if my right hon. Friend could clarify this point, about which I am concerned: will Israel be able to obtain arms for her own defence, or is that not possible at present? Under Article 5, Israel is excluded from the Pact. I hope my right hon. Friend will be able to say that he recognises—as I am sure he does—that Israel can make a valuable contribution to the defence of the Middle East. The strength of the Israeli Army has already been mentioned. It is a good Army, and the Israelis are a hardy people who could make a valuable contribution to strengthening the position in this dangerous area. I hope we should welcome such a contribution from the Israelis, and that my right hon. Friend will make this clear.
I am sorry that my right hon. Friend the Minister of State is not now in the Chamber, because he could put me right on this point. I think he said that there is nothing in the Pact which prevents us having a similar Treaty with Israel later. Perhaps the Foreign Secretary would make that clear, also. I hope, further, that my right hon. Friend will confirm—if confirmation be necessary—that the declaration of 25th May, 1950, is in no way weakened by the conclusion of the Pact with Iraq. I believe that the Israelis would be happier if they could obtain that confirmation and a definite assurance that, were they attacked, the supply of arms to the Arab nations would be immediately stopped. I do not know whether that be possible, but the Israelis would be greatly reassured could they be told. I have already said that I think Israel is alarmed, I believe unduly alarmed, and if my right hon. Friend could give a favourable answer to the points I have raised, I think it would do much to reassure them.

6.15 p.m.

Mr. Anthony Greenwood: I agree with almost everything said by the hon. Member for Blackley (Mr. E. Johnson), and I therefore will not follow his arguments, particularly as, like him, I wish to set an example of brevity. I want to be brief, and I want to avoid saying anything that could possibly inject any additional venom into the already difficult situation in the Middle East. But perhaps I might preface my remarks by saying that, in my submission, to be a pro-Zionist—like the Prime Minister and myself—does not mean that one is necessarily anti-Arab. Those most anxious to preserve the integrity of Israel are equally anxious to do everything possible to raise the standard of living throughout the Arab world.
My hon. Friend the Member for Coventry, East (Mr. Crossman) challenged the Foreign Secretary to say something about his conception of the future of the Arab League. I should have thought it enough for the time being to concentrate on the present condition of the Arab League. The Pact which Iraq has now signed with Turkey has shown what many of us have been saying for some years, that the impressive front of the Arab League is nothing but a hollow sham. Now we have the Arab League split from top to bottom, with Iraq looking to the West, Egypt rallying Saudi-Arabia and a rather reluctant Syria to her side, and Jordan and the Lebanon—I think wisely—insisting on remaining aloof.
To that extent. I think that the Pact is a good thing. I agree with the right hon. Member for Kelvingrove (Mr. Elliot), who sees this Pact as being what he called a moderating factor in the Middle East. I believe it to be a good thing that a country like Iraq should come under the influence of responsible guides like Turkey and ourselves. Although there is the correspondence between M. Mederes and Nuri As-Said, I think it would be a mistake to attach too much importance to the reference in that correspondence to the position of Israel.
I doubt very much whether Iraq really feels passionately about frontiers so far away from herself as the frontiers of Israel. I suspect that Turkey shares that indifference to the problem, and that the

references to Israel were put into the correspondence only to provide a face-saving alibi for Iraq in face of the arrogant intransigence which Egypt was showing. We should emphasise those aspects of the Pact, because we are doing a poor service to Israel if we go out of our way to increase the very natural apprehension she is feeling.
But the purpose of the Turco-Iraqi Pact was not, of course, to divide the Arab League. Its purpose was to add another link to that chain of defence which holds the Communist bloc short of the Atlantic, the Mediterranean and the Indian Oceon. My right hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham, South (Mr. H. Morrison) was right to remind us that we should take this rather wider view of the Pact.
I go on to say, however, that I think that the claims made about the importance of the Agreement are grossly exaggerated. The right hon. Member for Kelvingrove took exception to my right hon. Friend the Member for Smethwick (Mr. Gordon Walker) describing the defences created by the Pact as being" a thin tier. "But that is a fairly accurate description of the defences we are obtaining as a result of the Agreement. My hon. Friend the Member for Swindon (Mr. T. Reid) spoke of the Pact being designed to defend the Middle East against Communism, but we must be under no illusions about the strength of the defence or the value of the defences that we are obtaining as a result of this Agreement.
After all, Iraq was not the most dependable of our Allies in the last war. There is not a great deal of stability in the country, despite what the hon. Member for Stafford and Stone (Mr. H. Fraser) had to say this afternoon. There is a great deal of unrest in the country. The Communist Party, although illegal, is extremely strong. Nuri As-Said is a fairly old man, and nobody can tell what will happen when he resigns or is replaced. There is also a good deal of strong anti-British feeling in Iraq, and I confess to the gravest of apprehensions as to whether this Agreement will stand the test of time.
As for the military value of the Agreement, I should like to remind the House of what the "Economist" had to say in November last year, at the time


when the Chief of the Imperial General Staff, Field Marshal Sir John Harding, made his tour of the Middle East. It said:
The vulnerable, covetable area between Egypt and Iran consists of lands in which the virus of neutralism is strong, of peoples who seldom give thought for the day after tomorrow. How many of these nations, except the Turks, actively want to commit themselves to western alliances? How united would be their officer corps, let alone their rank and file, behind such a policy? How far can their armies—largely composed of unlettered conscripts—be relied upon except when reinforced with a stiffening of western personnel?
I do not think that the Pact radically alters the position which the "Economist" described on that occasion.

Mr. Elliot: Even the "Economist" specifically mentioned the Turks; it said "except the Turks." The hon. Member is talking about Iraq. The Pact also includes Turkey.

Mr. Greenwood: Yes; but we had the Turks already.
What I am arguing now is that our acceding to the Pact made between Turkey and Iraq does not really provide more than the thin tier of defence to which my right hon. Friend the Member for Smethwick was referring. I think that what the "Economist" had to say on that occasion is largely true of the rest of the Arab League, and that as my right hon. Friend the Member for Smethwick said, if we are to be realistic, we must consider all the Arab countries in the Middle East as a whole.
My own belief—as we are discussing the protection which the Pact will give us against Communism—is that it is extremely unlikely that Russia will be so foolish as to invade the Middle East. I suspect that she will wait patiently for the Middle East to fall into her hands like a ripe plum, and I think that that will happen unless the problem of poverty throughout the Middle East is tackled on a regional and on a serious scale. Unfortunately, there has been very little progress in that direction so far, but I agree with what the Foreign Secretary had to say about what Iraq has been trying to do in the way of development. For that, at any rate, we should give credit to Nuri As-Said.
Iraq now is devoting 70 per cent. of her oil revenues to the development programme. That is good, but apart from

that there is not very much that is encouraging in the Middle Eastern picture, outside Israel. There is not much that is encouraging, partly because in most of the Arab countries there are reactionery regimes. In others of the Arab countries it is not possible, because of the size and strength of the country, to cope with problems of the magnitude which they have to face. Thirdly, there is the determination of the Arab League to strangle Israel and to commit suicide at the same time. I was glad that my right hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham, South drew attention to the disastrous effects of the Arab blockade against Israel.
All this brave talk of the Arab League has ended up in absolutely nothing. I should like to call the attention of the House to the report of the Study Mission which was sent to the Middle East by the United States Congress and which reported last year. The members were Representatives Smith and Prouty. On page 15 of that Report they passed this judgment upon the Arab League:
The Arab League is frequently mentioned in the Press but its function has been almost exclusively to oppose developments in Israel. So far, the League has never been able to agree upon or carry out any programme of constructive action.
The irony of the situation is that although so little has been done, the Arab League has existed almost entirely upon subventions from the United Nations, the United States and the United Kingdom.
Until this foolish blockade of Israel ends, and until the Arabs are prepared to talk peace, the Middle East can never be secure against Communism in the way that everybody in this House this afternoon wishes it to be secure. In my submission—I may be wrong—our only really reliable friend in the Middle East, in the present fluid state of affairs, is the Republic of Israel. She is the only country which is making democracy work. Her military prowess has been proved. By going ahead with plans for economic development and by creating a welfare State, she is providing the real answer to the challenge of Communism in the Middle East.
But all this time, while all that is being done, Israel is being subjected to a constant barrage of threats and abuse from her neighbours. The Arab countries refuse even to discuss peace with Israel.
Israel's offers to pay compensation to the refugees, to accept 100,000 of them back, and to sign non-aggression pacts with her neighbours, have all been turned down with arrogant contempt by the nations belonging to the Arab League. It is quite clear that the Arabs are risking everything upon their hopes of the economic collapse of Israel.
It is because of the identity of interest between Israel and ourselves, and because of the similarity of outlook between us on so many issues, that we cannot afford to allow that collapse to take place. I believe that we should do everything possible to help her, to help her secure the lifting of the blockade, to help to ensure that Arab arms are not used against her, to help to stabilise Israel's economy and to help to end the feeling of isolation from which Israel is suffering so acutely.
But the more concessions that we make—like the signing of the Suez Agreement and the signing of the Turco-Iraqi Pact—the weaker our bargaining position becomes. That, more than anything else, has contributed to the pessimistic feeling on the part of our friends in Israel. Before the situation deteriorates further, or our bargaining position becomes even weaker, I hope that the Foreign Secretary will take full note of what my right hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham, South proposed, and that we shall give Israel that bilateral agreement which would end the feeling of isolation which is now afflicting her so tragically.

6.30 p.m.

Mr. F. M. Bennett: While I do not agree with every word said by the hon. Member for Swindon (Mr. T. Reid), I did particularly agree with his wish to bring back an air of reality to our debate. Judging by nearly every speech from hon. Members on both sides of the House, one might be forgiven for imagining that the debate was primarily concerned with the effect of a pact upon Israel, instead of the improvement of our world-wide defensive system against the threat of Russian imperialism.
Before proceeding with this main theme, however, may I say that I agree with my right hon. Friend the Member for Kelvingrove (Mr. Elliot) that Britain's accession to this Pact is clear evidence to Israel that it is not to be allowed to be directed against her in future but, instead,

should actually strengthen her position. I was glad to see, too, that even the hon. Member for Rossendale (Mr. Anthony Greenwood) agreed that Britain's adherence to this Pact should at least give Israel more assurance than she would be entitled to feel if Britain were not a party to it.
Apart, also, from any other consideration, one would imagine that the fact that Saudi-Arabia and Egypt—neither of which countries could be accused of being pro-Israel—have reacted so violently to Britain's accession to the Pact would indicate that it cannot be designed to weaken Israel. On the contrary, I believe that one of the reasons for their hostility is precisely that they see something which we welcome, namely, the diversion of much of Iraq's thinking away from possible war with Israel to the real dangers in that part of the world, which arise from the threat of Communist aggression.
I notice, further, that Article 6 of the Pact provides for the setting up of a permanent ministerial council when at least four Powers have become parties to it. After our accession, therefore, only one more is needed. I can imagine nothing more reassuring to Israel than to have such a permanent ministerial council in being to decide how this Pact shall proceed, especially when its leading member will be Britain, who, by the Tripartite Declaration, has surely shown that she will in no circumstances allow any pact to which she adheres to be used in a manner hostile to Israel.
Before I came into the Chamber I was looking with interest at an atlas and examining not only the Middle East but the whole globe, in order to see how this new Pact affected the world-wide defensive system of the free world against the Communists. It is something of a feat—for which both this and the preceding Labour Government, together with our allies, deserve full credit—that we now have a defensive ring which, although often rather thin in places, extends all round the globe, from Norway to Pakistan—except for two gaps, in Iraq and Ian. We are now filling one of those gaps. I believe that this Pact will become really effective only if it is given a wider application, not only by the inclusion of Iran but also of Syria, Jordan and, perhaps, one day, in happier times, of Israel. Then we shall truly have sealed off one


more of the remaining potential trouble spots from the possibility of Communist aggression.
When I was travelling through the Middle East, in Iraq, Jordan, Palestine, the Lebanon and Turkey, shortly before being elected to this House, I got the impression that there were a number of weak States which would be much better off if they were joined together in some form of union. Although I should never suggest that it would be desirable to go back to the old days of Ottoman Empire, I think we are witnessing the start of the creation of a stable Middle East system, in a modern conception, to replace the old stability which used to exist, even in a most limited degree, in the days of the Ottoman Empire.
There is some hope now that the small countries which were carved up, largely to suit the rival wishes of local monarchies and the rival claims of the victor Powers after the 1914–18 War, will be again welded together into a unity which can only be of benefit to them all, quite apart from the purely defensive concept, against Soviet aggression.
As a firm admirer of Turkey, I am delighted to see her playing such an effective part in this arrangement. During my tour of the Middle East I went by car through Iraq and Jordan, and then through the Lebanon and Syria, across the Taurus Mountains into Asia Minor. If the Russians ever invade the Middle East I suppose that that is the route they will use, because, as Alexander the Great found, it is one of the very few ways of getting over the Caucasus mountain range, and into the fertile crescent of the Middle East.
Even so, it would be no easy task. That mountain pass over the Taurus Mountains is a very difficult one, even for a modern army. At the top a little plaque is let into a wall of solid rock. That plaque is supposed to have been carved by Alexander the Great, and on it he says that he trusts that no conqueror of the future will have to pass that difficult way again. I hope that what we are doing today is to make that pass even a little more difficult if anybody else wishes to emulate Alexander the Great.

Mr. Philips Price: It was not Alexander the Great, but the Emperor Adrian.

Mr. Bennett: I was impressed, on my tour of Turkey, by the fact that it is characteristic of the people—and one meets it very little elsewhere in the Middle East—that they really appreciate the danger of Soviet Communism. Even the poorest Turkish peasant, if asked where he thinks the real danger is coming from, will say that it is coming from Russia. If he is asked, "Does that mean that you fear or dislike Communism"? he will reply, "We fear the Russians. They have tried to come this way every century. Whether they have been Communists or Tsarists they have always tried to come this way." Yet this Turkish peasant, who would fight really hard against the Russians, has probably never read, or ever heard of, Karl Marx. They are just traditional enemies of Russia.
By linking ourselves with Turkey, and bringing other Middle East countries within our general defensive structure, there is not the slightest doubt that we have struck a really good blow for the maintenance of peace and security in the Middle East. That is my view, and those who have sought to divert the discussion of this Pact by over-stressing the fears of Israel, which should not and need not exist, ought not to forget its primary purpose, which is to make a beginning in strengthening stability and security in a part of the world where, for far too long, there has been a state of insecurity and uncertainty.

6.40 p.m.

The Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs (Sir Anthony Eden): Perhaps I may begin by dealing with one or two detailed questions which I have been asked before I come to my main argument about this Pact.
The other day I was asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Horsham (Mr. Gough) whether the agreement would in any way affect the independence of Kuwait, and I gladly give him the confirmation that it does not. I assure my hon. Friend that our new Agreement with Iraq will not in any way affect our special responsibilities towards Kuwait and the other States of the Persian Gulf. That was one question which I was asked as a preliminary point.
I was also asked by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Lewisham. South (Mr. H. Morrison) about a partly


legal point, why this Pact refers to the obligations of U.N.O. as "between themselves," as the words are? Under Article 3, the obligations of the United Nations Charter continue in full force. In fact, no pact can override the Charter. In two different places in the Pact there are direct references to the over-riding obligations of the Charter, apart from the fact that the whole structure is based on Article 51 of the Charter, as the right hon. Gentleman knows.
I was also asked, by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Smethwick (Mr. Gordon Walker), whether the Commonwealth were informed. The answer is, "Yes, they were." He also asked whether I had seen the remarks of the Prime Minister of India on the Pact. The answer is, "Yes, I have." He was, of course, critical not only of this Pact but of all pacts anywhere, including our Western arrangements, which also fell under his condemnation. We all know that this is the view of the Prime Minister of India which, of course, he is entitled to have and to express. It is not the view of the majority of hon. Members on either side of the House. Each successive Government have played their part in building up these pacts.
I now come to discuss the main issue which is before us. I must say that I have been a little surprised that there has been so little emphasis today about the strategic importance of our association with Turkey in this vital theatre for us in the world. Some hon. Members—I think one hon. Member, certainly—referred to how very thin we were on the ground, and how very weak was the position. I must say that I do not so regard the position, which brings us and Turkey together in the 'vitally strategic area of Northern Iraq.
That seems to me to be something which most chiefs of staff, as the right hon. Gentleman, I think, would agree, for a very considerable time have desired to see realised, and it is a much better position from the point of view of defending the area than, for instance, being on the Canal. Here is where I am still slightly mystified at the attitude of Egypt. I should have thought that from the Egyptian point of view, supposing it is accepted, as it is accepted that, generally, Egypt is friendly to the West and with the West,

the further north we were and the nearer the main defence was towards the Taurus mountains the better it would be for Egypt.
Just as we would prefer to see the defence on the Elbe rather than on the Rhine, and on the Rhine rather than the Channel, I should have thought it would have been precisely the same in the Middle East. That point of view also applies to Israel. The defence of the area, apart from the internal strains and stresses of the area, is in the interest of Israel as well as our interest, or the interest of Iraq, or that of any other country that is there.
Again, the further the protection is to the north the better it must be for those in the area. For many years—from the early days of the life of Israel—Turkey has been extremely friendly towards Israel and it is quite unthinkable that Turkey would, in fact, join in arrangements which would be unfriendly and unsatisfactory from the point of view of Israel. I believe that while we can argue and discuss the position inside this defended area, it is important that we should keep in our minds that this Pact assists in the defence of the whole area from a major threat. That, I should have thought, everyone in the area would agree in welcoming.
May I say that when we join an arrangement in an area we do not join to make the maximum amount of trouble in that area, which is what some of our critics seemed to suggest this afternoon. I do not think that anyone really thinks that of us. except perhaps the hon. Member for Coventry, East (Mr. Crossman) who seems convinced that I am the biggest trouble-maker in the whole Middle East—I mean the Government. We did not join this Pact to encourage worse relations between Iraq and Israel, and I do not believe that, in his more generous moments, the hon. Member can really believe that himself. The whole weight of his argument this afternoon was that we were in all this business, and the result would be to make relations still worse between Iraq and Israel.
Our purpose in joining this was a good deal simpler than anything that has been suggested. There is nothing particularly original in what we are doing. I do not pretend that there is. The late Government made the Treaty of Portsmouth. It


was a perfectly good Treaty, but it did not come to anything because the Government of Iraq was overthrown. I am not blaming the late Government for that. These are things which sometimes happen in international affairs. But the engagement they entered into is precisely the same kind of engagement that we are entering into here. We do not think it necessary to make an immediate treaty with Israel, nor did they when they made their treaty with Jordan—which they made and we did not make.
I think we must try to give some balance and proportion to this matter. Our purpose in acceding to this Pact was a very simple one. I think that by doing so we have strengthened our influence and our voice throughout the Middle East. I believe in my country whatever its Government may happen to be. My Government's purpose is to try to bring about relaxation and an easing of tension in the world. I am in favour of any arrangement which has the result of increasing the influence of my country.
In one of the few papers which we are privileged to read now, I saw this sentence:
By its rapid action in joining the new alliance Britain has ensured for itself a continuing voice in Middle East affairs.
That puts precisely what our purpose was. I have no need to amplify that further, except, perhaps, to say that in doing that there is no sinister or ulterior motive at all. As very often happens in foreign affairs, people do not always think that our motives are what we ourselves know them to be.
It is interesting to observe what has been said in various capitals about the Pact. I will mention three. There is one, that of Turkey, to which I attach the greatest importance. The Prime Minister of Turkey, in an interview which he gave immediately our accession to this Agreement was announced:
The Middle East will thus cease to have the appearance of a vacuum from the point of view of peace and security. It will be freed from the atmosphere of instability and unrest and will become a peaceful region whose security will rest on a solid organisation. I shall not dwell further on the value and importance of the Baghdad Pact because it is being proved by events. The adherence of Britain is one of the most important of these. The participation of Britain, our valued friend and ally, is most important for us.

That is Turkey's welcome and we were very glad to get it.
Other comments that I am going to read were not quite so friendly. The first of them was from Tel Aviv. It is not quite so bad as some of the speeches made here purporting to interpret the views of Her Majesty's Government. This is a telegram dated 2nd April:
Her Majesty's Government's decision to accede to the Turco-Iraqi Pact, which had been expected, has been received calmly. Full reports of your statement in Parliament on 30th March have appeared in the Press. Prominence has been given to the fact that Her Majesty's Government would not associate themselves with the exchange of letters on Palestine. This has given considerable satisfaction.
My next is from Cairo. It says:
Egyptian Press reaction was uniformly unfavourable.
The interesting thing is that "Al Gumhouria," in an editorial, criticised Nuri Pasha for his readiness to co-operate with imperialists and Zionists. That description should interest the hon. Member for Coventry, East. Next day I got a further telegram saying that "Gumhouria" commented bitterly on my statement that the new agreement was a desirable development from Israel's point of view. The fact that it was desirable from Israel's point of view meant, therefore, that it was thoroughly bad in all respects.
Is it not just possible that the truth lies between all those various extremes, that we are not guilty of the wild charges which the hon. Member for Coventry, East made, and that this is a reasonable contribution to a difficult situation in the Middle East? At any rate, there is the position. It was received with enthusiasm in Ankara, calmly if not with enthusiasm in Israel, not so well in Egypt, and, worst of all, in Moscow. I still take comfort to myself from that fact, in view of the underlying purpose of the Pact.
Perhaps I may now come to one or two of the other criticisms about the exclusion of Israel from this Pact. That was the point made by the right hon. Member for Lewisham, South and by the former Minister of Defence, the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Easington (Mr. Shinwell). The Turco-Iraqi original pact was said to exclude Israel, because there were no relations between Iraq and Israel; at present there are no relations. The problem is not new. It existed when


the late Government tried to build up a Middle East defence organisation. Israel was not going to be a foundation member of that organisation, which was to consist of the Egyptians, ourselves, Turkey, France and the United States; but not Israel.
The late Government had the same difficulty, or would have had, in bringing Israel into that pact as there would be to any attempt to bring Israel into this arrangement between Iraq and Turkey. The problem to which this House has to address itself is whether anything can be done by statesmanship or in any other way to improve the situation that exists between Israel and not only Iraq, but the neighbouring States.
I was a little indignant when the hon. Member for Coventry, East talked about our conniving—I understand that was the charge—at keeping the refugee problem going. It is true that we are very large contributors to the fund run by the United Nations which is responsible for its administration. It is common humanity to keep these people alive, and I do not see that we should be charged because we have not been successful, so far, in getting a settlement for a large number of these refugees.
I will tell the House this, which I, personally, believe. We shall not get any settlement between the Arabs and the Israelis until at least three things are done. The first is settlement of the refugee problem, the second is settlement of frontiers and the third is settlement of the problem of the Jordan waters. All these are component parts of the settlement and we shall not be able to reach lasting agreement on any one of them unless we reach agreement on all three. That is the size of the problem that we face when trying to bring about improved relations between Israel and the Arab States, which is what we have been working for and are still working for now.
Some of the speeches made today seemed to suggest that we had no existing engagements, but, of course, we have. Let me try to underline them. First, is our obligation under the 1950 Tripartite Declaration, and I will read paragraph 3 of it, which says:
The three Governments, should they find that any of these States was proposing to violate frontiers or armistice lines, would, consistently with their obligations as Members of

the United Nations, immediately take action, both within and outside the United Nations, to prevent such violation.
I have no doubt that at the time those words were carefully chosen. They are far-reaching words, and I doubt whether it would be possible to devise in a treaty or anywhere else anything which carried more extensive obligations than they do.
I was asked a little while back during the debate on 2nd November, by my hon. Friend the Member for Blackley (Mr. E. Johnson):
Do the terms of the 1950 Declaration bind us to go to the help of Israel if she is attacked by an Arab State?
The answer I gave was:
Yes, Sir, most certainly."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 2nd November, 1954; Vol. 532, c. 326.]
That is where we stand. That is the obligation we have towards Israel. Whether by putting that into a treaty or some other form we could make it more binding than what we have, is arguable. What is not arguable, and is very valuable to us, is that this is a Tripartite Declaration and not a bilateral declaration between us and Israel. It is one in which the United States and France are equally engaged with us.

Mr. Shinwell: I am obliged to the right hon. Gentleman for referring to this matter. The right hon. Gentleman did, some time ago, provide a more liberal and generous interpretation of the Tripartite Declaration. The trouble is that the other signatories to the Agreement have not furnished such a liberal interpretation, and there is some uncertainty whether the Agreement would be implemented if trouble did arise.

Sir A. Eden: I have heard that said, but according to my information I have no evidence at all to show that either the United States, or France, is weakening in support of the Tripartite Declaration. It so happens that I gave this answer in the House in regard to the position in which we were, and I am bound to say, in fairness, that I have no reason to think that the United States and France do not endorse what I have said, or do not stand by every word of the 1950 Declaration. I doubt whether we could find words to do this better.
I come to the question whether there should be some further agreement. This is the position as I see it. By every means


in our power we have to use our influence, which is not negligible in these parts of the world, to bring about a settlement between Israel and the Arab States. For such a settlement, so far as I am concerned—and I am speaking for Her Majesty's Government—we should be perfectly ready to venture into some new form of guarantee. Such a settlement would, in our view, have to cover the three things which I have said are vital—frontiers, Jordan waters and the refugees. If we could get an arrangement between those countries in which we would lend all our influence and help if it was desired, we would be willing to enter into further engagements ourselves, to back up the arrangement arrived at.

Mr. Shinwell: This is also very important. Does the right hon. Gentleman mean by that that Her Majesty's Government would take the initiative, or that they would await an initiative on the part of the United Nations?

Sir A. Eden: I did not mention the United Nations and, as the right hon. Gentleman will know, I do not want to go much more into what we will do. How we make approaches, or what approaches we make or when we make them is something which, as I think he will agree, we cannot discuss in public. What I am saying is that if an arrangement can be arrived at by which we can bring peace into these areas, Her Majesty's Government are prepared to lend our name and authority to underwrite the arrangement, if we think it a fair and reasonable one between the parties.

Mr. Crossman: The statement which the Foreign Secretary makes about underwriting a final agreement is very important. Meanwhile, we have certain political alliances pending the final agreement. What we are asking is whether, pending a final agreement, anything approximating to what we have with the Arabs can be given to the Jews-before the final agreement comes, because that might be ten years hence.

Sir A. Eden: As I thought I had said, we have, under the terms of the Tripartite Declaration, already given an undertaking and that, I think, is where it should be; and I have given what has been called a liberal interpretation to it. We will fulfil that undertaking.
For the rest, I should like to see an arrangement between Israel and her neighbours. I have no illusions about the difficulty of this negotiation. The tragic thing is that whenever it seems that the atmosphere is slightly improved, when we begin to think that it seems as if something might be done by negotiation, an incident occurs and the whole thing flares up again, as has happened twice in the last fortnight.
If we could have the appearance of anything like settlement we have our own ideas and thoughts. We have discussed them with others, and would be ready to do what we could, I think quietly, to try to help negotiations forward. Meanwhile, I say to the hon. Member for Coventry, East, and I think he would agree, that this Tripartite Declaration and the statement which I made in the House are a powerful shield to Israel. Israel has wise rulers and they will not underestimate its importance. I do not think that it would be doing a service to peace in that part of the world if any of us were to attempt to belittle that undertaking.
This arrangement is one of several which have been made in the Middle East. I resent a little what was said about Nuri Pasha this afternoon, because I truly believe that because a man is friendly to this country he need not be called a "stooge." It is not a crime to be friendly to Great Britain. I have known Nuri Pasha for a great many years and I know how much his thoughts are also wrapped up in the development schemes, in which Iraq is already leading in a quite remarkable manner. Practically the whole of her oil revenues have been set aside for this work.
In Baghdad, one of the things which impressed me very much was the discussion we had on the question of armaments, which have been kept level, broadly, between Israel and her neighbours. When we discussed the question of armaments under the Agreement, Nuri Pasha made it clear to me, and I respected him for it, that he was not prepared to divert to the purchase of arms the oil revenues which he was allocating to further development work. I thought that he was perfectly correct in that. I think we should pay tribute to the fact that in that respect Iraq is leading in the Arab world. I have some hope


that on the basis of that relationship we can create wider friendship in the Middle East. At any rate, it will be our object so to do.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,
That this House approves the accession of Her Majesty's Government to the Turco-Iraqi Pact of Mutual Co-operation and the Special Agreement which has been concluded with the Iraqi Government.

Orders of the Day — CHILDREN AND YOUNG PERSONS (HARMFUL PUBLICATIONS) BILL

As amended, considered.

Clause 1.—(WORKS TO WHICH THIS ACT APPLIES.)

7.5 p.m.

Mr. Eric Fletcher: I beg to move, in page 1, line 13, to leave out from "fall" to the end of line 15.
The House will recall that we had quite a considerable discussion in Committee about an Amendment similar to this. At the end of that discussion the Home Secretary—as a result, I think, of some pressure brought upon him from both sides—undertook to consider the matter between then and Report stage. I very much hope that as a result of that consideration the Government will find themselves impressed with the force of the arguments then used.
The point is a relatively short but not, I think, unimportant one. Substantial improvements have already been made in the Bill in Committee. We on this side of the House are appreciative of the efforts which the Home Secretary has made in meeting some of the objections which we felt to the Bill in its original form. I want quite shortly to summarise the reasons why I think that the Bill would be improved if we eliminated these somewhat ambiguous and, as I think, unnecessary words. They appear to have been inserted partly with a view to defining the word "corrupt", although there was some disagreement between us as to whether the purported definition extends or reduces the meaning of that word in its ordinary significance.
One argument which appealed to me was that of my right hon. Friend the Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede). He said, speaking partly from his experience as a magistrate, that when it becomes necessary in a court of law to construe an Act of Parliament—particularly an Act of Parliament containing a criminal offence—the fewer words there are in it the better.
We are now agreed that the chief aim of the Bill is to deal with horror comics which tend to corrupt children and young


persons. I think that if we were to leave it there the court should not, in any ordinary case, have any difficulty in saying of a given magazine which portrays stories of a kind defined in the Bill that there is or is not a tendency to corrupt. If that is the sole question, it will be so much easier for the court to reach a decision. I would urge the deletion of these words because, in an adjectival sense, they purport to give some illustration of what would be corruption, but do not purport to be an exhaustive illustration of the corruption which this Bill aims to prevent.
Another reason why I think these words in brackets, giving this partial definition, are objectionable is that they are ambiguous. The Solicitor-General gave us some advice during the Committee stage as to where, in his view, the final words
or in any other way whatsoever)
would be construed as ejusdem generis—that is to say, of a like nature with the preceding words. After all, the opinion of the Solicitor-General on that matter, as he would be the first to acknowledge, would not bind any court of law, and other people think that there is a good deal of ambiguity in these final words.

I will not repeat the arguments used during the Committee stage, as they were fully adduced. I think that the Bill would be improved if these words were omitted. I assure the Home Secretary that he would not be giving anything away but would be simplifying the administration of the Bill. I therefore hope that he will be able to accept the Amendment.

Mr. Roy Jenkins: I beg to second the Amendment.

The Solicitor-General (Sir Harry Hylton-Foster): We are obliged to the hon. Member for Islington, East (Mr. E. Fletcher) for raising this matter once again. What is involved is a problem—as I think, a difficult problem—of drafting. We adhere to the view expressed during the Committee stage that not much difference results to the effect of the Bill by having the words in the Clause or leaving them out.
We had hoped that by putting them in we might reduce the field of possible argument before a magistrates' court if

a point should be raised as to the meaning of the word "corrupt" in the context, and perhaps in that way getting rid of difficulties and having to go to a higher court to obtain a final decision about it. Having had the opportunity of considering the various arguments raised on one side or the other in Committee, we think that this is a case in which brevity would be the handmaid of clarity, and we are content to accept the Amendment.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause 2.—(PENALTY FOR PRINTING, PUBLISHING, ETC., WORKS TO WHICH THIS ACT APPLIES.)

7.15 p.m.

The Joint Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Sir Hugh Lucas-Tooth): I beg to move, in page 1, line 21, at the end to insert:
Provided that, in any proceedings taken under this subsection against a person in respect of selling or letting on hire a work or of having it in his possession for the purpose of selling it or letting it on hire, it shall be a defence for him to prove that he had not examined the contents of the work and had no reasonable cause to suspect that it was one to which this Act applies.
The Amendment seeks to meet some of the points which were raised in the discussion of this Clause during the Committee stage. It does not go so far as some hon. Members wished, but the Government feel that it represents the most that can be done without endangering the effective enforcement of the Bill.
My right hon. and gallant Friend has given very careful consideration to the argument put forward on the Committee stage urging that the prosecution should be required to show, as the right hon. and learned Member for Neepsend (Sir F. Soskice) said, some conscious purpose to deprave. I think those were his words. My right hon. and gallant Friend still feels that it would impose an impossible burden on the prosecution to require it to do more than establish that the work was one to which the Act applies, and that the person charged had published or printed or sold it, and so on.
My right hon. and gallant Friend's view is that anyone who is aware of the contents of such a work, which is found by the court to come within the definition of Clause 1, must be presumed to foresee the natural and probable consequences of


his action. The Government were, however, impressed by the argument that a retailer, in some circumstances, might be genuinely unaware of what he was selling, and this is the point which the Amendment seeks to meet. I think it was the hon. Member for Devonport (Mr. Foot) who emphasised that point.
The Amendment does not apply to the printer or publisher, who must know what he is doing, but it does enable a retailer to put forward a defence that he had not examined the contents of the work and had no reasonable cause to suspect that it was one to which the Measure applies. It will be for the retailer to explain to the court how it was that he came to have the work in his possession or to sell it without having any suspicion as to its nature.
The sort of circumstances in which he might be able to establish the defence provided here would be those in which he had received a large consignment of magazines, which included some horror comics, which he had not had time to examine, or those in which he had sold a work whose nature was not apparent from the cover. It is possible that the cover could be deceptive. He would have some difficulty in convincing the court that he had no reasonable cause to be suspicious of horror comics of the sort with the titles and the pictures on the cover which we have all seen.

The retailer would not, of course, be able to argue, on the basis of this Amendment, that he had examined the contents of the work and did not think the Act applied to it. If such a defence were to be made available to him, it would make enforcement of the Bill very difficult indeed, if not impossible. The Amendment meets the view, which was strongly pressed during the Committee stage, and with which the Government certainly sympathise, that a man should not be convicted if he can satisfy the court that he did not know, and could not reasonably have known, that he was dealing with harmful publications to which the Bill applies.

Mr. Michael Foot: I should like to thank the Government for moving the Amendment along lines on which I and other hon. Members expressed some views. It goes.a considerable way to meet the case

which I presented, and it shows that in introducing the Bill the Government do not desire to harass the retailer, nor do they wish the retailer to impose his own censorship over a much wider field than they intend to be dealt with by the Bill. I thank the hon. Gentleman for the Amendment. It is not quite in the words which I should have chosen, but no doubt it will work out all right, because I believe that it meets the situation in general.
I hope that it will be well understood by retailers that the Government and the House have recognised and tried to meet their difficulties, and that no retailer should use as an excuse for censoring publications the idea that he might be prosecuted under the Bill. The retailer has a protection under the Clause, and no retailer should go out of his way to extend censorship beyond that which the House is intending to impose.
In my view it is almost always wrong for a newsagent, bookseller, or retailer. to impose a censorship on the products which he purveys. That is not his business. He has to take some account of the law of libel and of obscenity, which we hope will soon be reformed, and he will have to take this new law into account, for he has his responsibilities under it. But it is wrong for any newsagent or bookseller to go beyond that, and if he thinks that he can solve the problem easily by saying, "I will not examine the product because it may contain dangers: I will not sell it," then he is not doing his duty as a retailer.

His duty is not to impose a censorship but to enable the public to buy anything which the laws of England say can be sold. His duty is not to intervene between the right of the public to buy and the right of someone to publish. I hope it will be understood by newsagents and retailers that the House of Commons has attempted to meet the legitimate difficulties in which they might be involved, and that it would be wrong of them to attempt to impose any kind of censorship of their own.

Sir Frank Soskice: As one who took part in the controversy on this Clause, I, too, should like to add my word of thanks to the hon. Gentleman. I should have liked the Government to go a little further, but as I intimated in Committee, I recognise that there was a danger of unduly depriving


the Bill of its efficacy. The Government seem to have reached a sensible compromise between the views expressed from both sides of the House and on both sides of the controversy, and I think that the Clause should now work.

Mr. William Keenan: I am not in agreement with my hon. Friend the Member for Devonport (Mr. Foot) and my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Neepsend (Sir F. Soskice). I have been concerned about efforts made to reduce the efficacy of the Bill, and I am sorry that the Government have provided this loophole of escape for those who are responsible for offering these publications to the public.
Had this been an earlier stage of the Bill, I should have suggested that the Government should have second thoughts, but that is not now possible. I am sure that several hon. Members will not be too happy that this loophole has been provided, and I wish the Bill had gone through without it.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause 3.—(POWER TO SEARCH FOR, AND DISPOSE OF, WORKS TO WHICH THIS ACT APPLIES AND ARTICLES FOR PRINTING THEM.)

Sir H. Lucas-Tooth: I beg to move, in page 2, line 38, at the end, to insert:
Provided that an order made under this subsection by a magistrates' court or, on appeal from a magistrates' court, by a court of quarter sessions shall not take effect until the expiration of the ordinary time within which an appeal in the matter of the proceedings in which the order was made may be lodged (whether by giving notice of appeal or applying for a case to be stated for the opinion of the High Court) or, where such an appeal is duly lodged, until the appeal is finally decided or abandoned.
It might be convenient also to discuss the next Amendment at the same time.
They both cover the same point, and are moved as a result of an undertaking given in Committee to cover a point raised in an Amendment moved by the hon. Member for St. Pancras, North (Mr. K. Robinson) providing that matter which had been seized by the police should not be destroyed pending an appeal.
The Amendment relating to England and Wales is necessarily somewhat complicated, but I think it speaks for itself. It is also necessary to provide separately

for the different legal procedure in Scotland. I hope that the House agrees that the two Amendments meet the undertaking given.

Mr. Roy Jenkins: We welcome the two Amendments. They meet the point of an Amendment moved by my hon. Friend the Member for St. Pancras, North (Mr. K. Robinson), and I am sorry that he is unable to be here this evening. As the Amendment was originally in my name, perhaps I may say a few words now. My hon. Friend moved it because I thought the Committee were rather tired of hearing Amendments moved by me.
I welcome this Amendment, which goes a substantial way towards meeting the point, and I think there could be no possible objection to it, even from my hon. Friend the Member for Kirkdale (Mr. Keenan).

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendment made: In page 2, line 45, at end, insert:
and for the proviso to subsection (2) there shall be substituted the following proviso:—
'Provided that an order made under this subsection shall not take effect until the expiration of the time within which an appeal under section sixty-two of the Summary Jurisdiction (Scotland) Act, 1954, may be taken in respect of the proceedings in which the order was made or, where such an appeal is taken, until the appeal is finally disposed of or abandoned'."—[Sir H. Lucas-Tooth.]

7.27 p.m.

The Secretary of State for the Home Department and Minister for Welsh Affairs (Major Gwilym Lloyd-George): I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
We have had a long and what can be described as a wide-ranging discussion on the Bill. I make no complaint about that, because hon. Members have properly expressed their concern about the danger of any possibilities of interference with the freedom of expression. Nobody complains about that. In fact, I made it perfectly clear when I moved the Second Reading that the Government were fully aware of the dangers, and that that was why very great care had been taken to limit the scope of the Bill to this type of publication.
That was dealt with in Clause 1, which had a searching examination in Committee. In the event, the Clause is unaltered except for the omission of words which


we have just agreed to omit. We feel that if the Clause is read in its entirety it succeeds in defining the type of harmful publication with which the Bill is concerned, as closely as that can possibly be done.
I am bound to say that I have not been convinced that there is any real danger that proceedings could ever be taken under the Bill against the serious publications which have been mentioned from time to time. I shall not mention them now, but many good publications were mentioned. I am not convinced that the Bill could be used to deal with them.
As the House is aware, the Government recognised that if there were any dangers of that sort we should do everything possible to remove them, without destroying the efficacy of the Bill. That is why we readily agreed to incorporate two very important provisions—first, that proceedings could not be taken in England and Wales without the consent of the Attorney-General, and, secondly, that the Bill would lapse after 10 years.
I wish to say a word or two on the question of the Attorney-General. I saw a suggestion in the "Manchester Guardian" this morning which was quite wrong. It was that the Attorney-General would give his consent to a prosecution under this Bill if it were Government policy at the time to suppress an attempt, in good faith, to describe accurately real things or things horrible in themselves to which public attention ought to be called.
The Attorney-General, in deciding whether or not to institute proceedings, is acting in a quasi-judicial capacity and has regard to the evidence available and to the public interest. As the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for St. Helens (Sir H. Shawcross) said, on 29th January. 1951, "he does not have regard to the effect on his personal or his party's or the Government's political fortunes"; no Attorney-General would consent to the institution of a prosecution under this Bill, merely on account of Government policy, in respect of something which really is not a horror comic. It is right that I should make that perfectly clear.
In two respects, the Government have done a great deal to meet the wishes of hon. Members in every part of the House. The Government have done what they

can, by the Amendment of Clause 2 during the stage which we have just completed, about the question of the responsibility of retailers which was raised during the Committee stage.
The Bill received a unanimous Second Reading, and there is not much doubt that the majority of hon. Members on both sides of the House recognised the need for it. Of course it has been criticised inside and outside the House, mainly on two grounds. The first was that its scope was too restricted and the second was that the Bill was not necessary at all. At this stage, I cannot deal with the first criticisms, but I can say a word about the second.
It is always difficult to establish a case for legislation on a mischief which has not fully developed. It is true that the public outcry last autumn, and the decision to introduce the Bill, have stopped publication of" horror comics" in this country, but I am convinced that if the House had not shown its determination to deal with this evil, we should have been faced in a year or two with a much more serious problem, and one which would have been much more difficult to tackle. If any one has any doubt about that, he has only to look at what has happened elsewhere.
So in asking the House to give, I hope, a unanimous Third Reading to the Bill, I should like to express my gratitude to the right hon. Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede) and to his right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Sheffield, Neepsend (Sir F. Soskice) for the helpful and constructive attitude which they have shown at all stages of the Bill. I should like also to assure those other hon. Members on both sides of the House who, quite properly, have felt obliged to voice their criticisms of its provisions, that the Government have given the most serious consideration to their misgivings, and I think I can now say that they need not fear that under the Bill in its amended form there will be any danger of injustice being done.

7.34 p.m.

Dr. Horace King: I should like to be the first to congratulate the Home Secretary on this Bill. I remember that I raised this matter in the debate on the Gracious Speech and I would remind the House that two or three years ago my hon. Friend the Member


for Coventry, North (Mr. Edelman) asked for just such a Measure as the one to which I hope we shall give a Third Reading tonight.
In a way, the value and virtue of this Bill have been obscured, both on the Second Reading and in Committee, by the battle fought on behalf of the freedom of the Press and the freedom of literature, which several of my hon. Friends, particularly the hon. Members for Stechford (Mr. Roy Jenkins) and Devonport (Mr. Foot) have fought. I do not complain of that. It would be a bad day for Parliament if back benchers did not continually assert the personal vigilance which is the price of liberty, especially when we are discussing a Measure which curtails liberties to some degree. Their Amendments have been excellent reminders—and some of their speeches have been very powerful assertions—of the principle which every hon. Member who has supported this Bill holds as strongly as they do, that it is wrong to interfere with the free expression of opinion.
All the time we have been pressing for a Bill of this kind, we have asserted, on the one hand, our desire not to interfere with freedom and, on the other, our belief that it is the duty of adults to protect children, and that it is a negation of virtue in the name of freedom to permit children to be contaminated by the kind of stuff which has perverted the child life not only of this country but of many others.
I congratulate the Home Secretary on his courage in facing up to the sticky problem of attempting to define a horror comic. I am not a lawyer, nor am I expert enough to comment on the success of the definition. Some countries have attempted to write the term "horror comic" into a Bill, but the first Clause of this Bill sets out what all of us know are the salient features of the evil we are attempting to combat.
I also congratulate the right hon. and gallant Gentleman on his resolute determination to get the Bill through the House unweakened. The Amendments that have been made are ones that we can conceive will safeguard the proper interests of British citizens, but we have resisted any Amendment which would weaken the Bill and would enable the purveyors of the crime comic to smash the purpose of the

Bill. I am sure that the vested interests in horror comics will do their best to wriggle through it, but they will find it difficult.
In urging the House to give the Bill a unanimous Third Reading, I would remind hon. Members of what it is we are attempting to destroy. I shall refer once more to Dr. Wertham, whose work in America on this subject is of such enormous value to child life throughout the world. As a psychiatrist, he has said that the increase of violence in juvenile delinquency has gone hand in hand with the sensational increase in the circulation of horror comics. He has said:
You cannot understand present day juvenile delinquency if you do not take into account the pathogenic and pathoplastic influence of the comic books …
Fortunately, he has defined those erudite terms, which mean the way the books cause trouble or determine the form that the trouble takes. He says, also, that his own clinical studies and those of a famous New York clinic, the Lafargue Clinic, with which he has been associated for many years, have convinced him that comic books represent the systematic poisoning of the well of childhood spontaneity. In the clearest condemnation I have heard of comic books, he said that they immunise a whole generation against pity and against the recognition of cruelty and violence. These are the words of one who has brought to the problem of the comic book not some predeliction of opinion but his painful experience in analysing the young criminals brought to him in a famous New York psychiatry clinic. The Police Commissioner of Philadelphia, Thomas Gibbons, has said:
Crime comics teach children refined cruelty to other human beings.
The Chief of Police for Washington has said:
A steady diet of violent crime in comic books is fed to our young people day after day … I think that it is reflected in the serious personal assaults that we come in contact with.
Our own Kingsley Martin has said:
Comic books teach that everything that Christ thought is sissy.
The Association of District Attorneys of the United States has gone on record demanding legislation of this kind. The best and noblest attack on the horror comic that I have seen is one that I came across in St. Louis, published by the Roman Catholic Church of that part of America.
Therefore, I am certain that what we are doing tonight we are doing on behalf of enlightened opinion, not only in our own country but throughout the world; on behalf of decent parents, and the bulk of parents are good folk; on behalf of the teaching profession, which has been unanimous in its condemnation of the evil that we are trying to destroy; and on behalf of magistrates and social workers who have voiced exactly the same opinion. All of these want the Bill to be passed.
If one can sum up what we are trying to destroy, it is the glorification of violence, the educating of children in the detail of every conceivable crime, the playing on sadism, the morbid stimulation of sex, the cultivation of race hatred, the cultivation of contempt for work, the family and authority, and, probably most unhealthy, the cultivation of the idea of the superman and a sort of incipient Fascism.
There are, of course, other evil influences with which our children have to cope. The Bill does not solve the problem of juvenile delinquency, but it is a contribution, and it does seek to remove from one corner of British life one of the most evil influences to which children can be submitted.
Many children get into trouble through no fault of their own. Very often it is the grown-ups who ought to be punished for subjecting children to the environment which leads many an innocent child astray. In this Bill we are, at any rate, cleaning up one corner of our commercial culture and removing one influence which may harm some of our weakest and most imaginative children and may do harm which is not so patently revealed to the children whom we discussed at an earlier stage, normal children.
I am glad that the Bill refuses to leave censorship in the hands of the horror comic producers. American experience has shown how impossible it is in this matter to expect the poacher to turn gamekeeper.
The other evening my hon. Friend the Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Hale) poked poetic fun at us for pausing, in the midst of a world obsessed with nuclear power, to clean up the literature to

which we subject our children. However, I would suggest that these two are not unconnected. It may be doubtful whether man will be moral enough to control the forces of nature that he has loosed in the world, but, at any rate, man will have less chance of controlling the nuclear forces which threaten to upset the world if he is breeding his children in the hate and violence which is the very thing that we fear in the application of nuclear energy.
I suggest that it would be a kind of defeatism if we said that, because there are great problems in the world that we have to confront, we would neglect to clean up the literature to which we are subjecting our children. The battle for civilisation is being fought in our schools, in our nurseries, in our playgrounds and in our homes. We may lose it. In the long run, modern pictorial technical skill may deprive the younger generations which are yet to come of reading altogether. One of the fears of the present day is that we are moving into a period of illiteracy.
The Bill marks a piece of fighting on behalf of reading ability and on behalf of culture in the truest sense. In a world where there is so much beauty and terror, so much that is fine, evocative, happy, and purifying in the literature that we have had handed down to us, and which it is our duty to hand down to our children, it is right that we should remove from our children the corrupting influence which might destroy all that we are attempting to do in the passing on of that literature and art to our youngsters.
The Bill seeks to stamp out, not the work of James Joyce, not the work of a great artist, but the work of bastard, mongrel artists who have created types of unhealthy amusement merely to please and make profits for a commercial syndicate, types which are harmful to children throughout the world.
I hope that with the passing of the Bill—I am sincerely hoping that, having fought their battles on it, my hon. Friends will unite in giving the Bill a unanimous Third Reading—we are giving a lead to the good, right-minded people in America who are alarmed about this and to the good-minded people in Germany who are alarmed about supermen, for which they have paid so bitterly in two world wars and which come seeping back into the minds of young German children


through the horror comic. I hope that we are playing a part, maybe a historic part, in moving away from one corner of commercial culture which is poisoning the minds of children in almost every part of the world.

7.47 p.m.

Mr. Nigel Nicolson: On behalf of publishers, I should like to say a final word of welcome to the Bill. I was among those who, on Second Reading, criticised the Bill rather heavily for including in its definitions publications which were not particularly harmful. I now think that my criticisms at that time were exaggerated, and that they have been entirely removed by the Amendments which my right hon. and gallant Friend has been able to accept or himself incorporate. I should have no fear at all if I had to stand before a jury and be judged on the basis of the definitions and qualifications contained in the Bill as it now stands.
My only regret is that the Bill contains, in Clause 1, no attempt to include any of the sexual matters which form a large part of the present-day horror comic. I also regret that it has not been possible to excise the provisions which give a police constable powers to look around while he is searching an office and lay his hands upon anything else that takes his fancy. With those two exceptions, the Bill is first-rate, and is warmly welcomed by the publishers, of whom I am one.

7.49 p.m.

Mr. Roy Jenkins: As the Home Secretary and the House know, I was one of those who expressed grave misgivings about the Bill on Second Reading. My hon. Friends and I did not divide against the Second Reading, but it was borne upon me during the Committee stage that there may be some disadvantages in not dividing against the Second Reading of a Bill of this sort, because one is then constantly reminded that it was given a unanimous Second Reading, and this has had an inhibiting effect upon what Amendments it would be reasonable to move. However, I did not divide against the Second Reading, and I do not propose to divide against the Third Reading.
I certainly recognise that there is here a problem to which the Home Secretary

has had to apply his mind. Horror comics as they exist, and as they might build up, were something with which he probably would have had to deal. However, even at this stage I would beg leave to differ a little from my hon. Friend the Member for Southampton, Test (Dr. King) for whose kind remarks and tolerant attitude throughout the debate I am grateful, about the very great effects which he thinks these horror comics can have upon the psychological development of a whole generation. We still know far too little about the effect of reading matter and all sorts of other experiences upon the human mind to be as certain as he is.
My hon. Friend referred to work by Dr. Wertham, in America, on this subject and that, of course, is work of importance. But I would remind him and the House that there is a good deal of dispute in America coming from not merely the horror comic lobby as to whether Dr. Wertham has the whole of the truth. Dr. Morris Ernst, who has a very fine record on the whole question of civil liberties, differs very strongly with the line which Dr. Wertham has taken. I do not think that anybody would say that Dr. Ernst was in the pay of the horror comic lobby or anybody else.
While differing a little from my hon. Friend on the importance which he has attached to these matters, I would not deny that a point arises here. But I certainly started off with, and still have, a doubt whether this problem can be dealt with only by legislation and I also doubt whether any censorship Bill might not cause almost as much harm as the evil it is called upon to destroy. Some hon. Members on both sides of the House have declared, "Of course, we respect the freedom of the Press and the freedom of opinion, but what possible argument can there be?" To those hon. Members and to others who have put forward arguments of that sort, I would say that it is important to argue in favour of the freedom of the Press and in favour of the freedom of opinion only when there is something to which somebody is objecting. If no one is objecting, there is no issue and it is only in these marginal cases that it is important to remember that there are two aspects of the matter which must be studied.
I freely admit that the Bill has been improved in Committee and on Report and I should like to express my personal gratitude to the Home Secretary for the Amendments to which he has been able to agree. I should have liked him to have gone further, but I do not minimise the distance he has gone and, such as it is, I am very grateful to him for it. The most important Amendment is that which makes the permission of the Attorney-General necessary for any prosecutions. That has put a heavy weight on the shoulders of the Attorney-General, and we should remember how much of the argument in favour of the rest of the Bill has been based upon this single Amendment.
We should remember how important it is that the Attorney-General should exercise his powers very circumspectly in this matter. He seems to have been aware of the weight which it involves, because, since making the announcement that the Amendment was to be accepted, he has hardly been seen in our discussions on the Bill. I hope that he will bear in mind how important it is and exercise his powers as carefully as he can.
The "Manchester Guardian" this morning raised a point of criticism which, I suppose, many of us noticed. Perhaps we have a greater opportunity of studying the "Manchester Guardian" at present even than we have on normal occasions. It is a remarkable state of affairs in which one can say that the national Press was unanimous this morning in its criticism of the Bill as it now stands, and I hope that the right hon. and gallant Gentleman the Home Secretary will bear that in mind. He countered the criticism by saying that the "Manchester Guardian" was not on sound ground because it was inconceivable that the Attorney-General could ever start prosecutions against anything other than a horror comic because of matters of Government policy, since the Attorney-General would be acting in a quasi-judicial capacity in these matters.
The Home Secretary quoted my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for St. Helens (Sir H. Shawcross). There, again, we are up against the difficulty that we are dependent on what the Attorney-General and future Attorney-Generals may or may not decide. I think that there was implicit in the right hon.
and gallant Gentleman's reply to the "Manchester Guardian" an admission that while the Attorney-General would not do such a thing and that no future Attorney-General would do such a thing, it would be possible, under the Bill, to start a prosecution against a publication such as that to which the "Manchester Guardian" referred, if a future Attorney-General were sufficiently misguided to allow that to happen.
I hope that future Attorney-Generals will bear in mind what has been carefully, repeatedly and forcibly said by the right hon. and gallant Gentleman and other Government spokesmen and that the fears which I and other hon. Members have about the Bill will prove to be unfounded. I hope that the right hon. and gallant Gentleman will not prove to be like Lord Camborne, who made a great number of statements about a Bill when it was going through Parliament, but then found that those statements did not work out. The ten-year limitation will help to prevent that being so. I very much hope that when the ten years are up the House will not find it necessary to re-enact the Bill, because it is better that we should go forward without this censorship Act on the Statute Book.

7.56 p.m.

Mr. W. R. Rees-Davies: I should like to adopt the language of the horror comics for a moment and say that I am very glad that the House is to endeavour to bury the slimy, reeking, squalid rash of putrefaction of the horror comic. I believe that that is the appropriate language to be found in these very special documents. The House is dealing with a very special case, and we have tried to deal with it on Second Reading, and very carefully in the Committee stage.
It would not be right for the Bill to receive a Third Reading without stressing the fact that it is a special case, and that it is not in any way to be regarded as a precedent when we come to consider the whole of the law of obscene publications. That is of the greatest importance. I rather expected the hon. Member for Stechford (Mr. Roy Jenkins) to make that point and save me the trouble.
I appreciate from the outset that publishers, like my hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth, East and


Christchurch (Mr. N. Nicolson), and the hon. Members for Stechford, Devonport (Mr. Foot) and others, have been particularly concerned, and have shown their concern in the course of the debate, that publishers, printers, newspapers, retailers, and others who are in honest employment and endeavour may be affected by the Bill. It has become quite apparent that the Home Secretary was absolutely right when he said that no author, no publisher and no retailer could be effected by the Bill, and he really put his finger on the main issue when he said that nonetheless that was not sufficient for him.
I was not prepared to see the Bill go through without adequate and proper safeguards, and it was for that reason that a number of us put down Amendments. The Bill has improved in four important aspects. The first is that the Attorney-General must now decide to prosecute. Secondly, we have been assured that this is a temporary Bill, and those who discuss it later may well say that there is no precedent in this Bill or we should not have made it a temporary Bill.
The third point is that we have refused—I am glad to say with the support of the Government—to allow the word" corrupt "to have a further confusing meaning attached to it in the first Clause. This deletion was proposed by the hon. Member for Islington, East (Mr. E. Fletcher) in the terms of the Amendment which I moved in the Committee stage. I am very glad that the Government were able to meet that point.
Even more important, not only for this Bill, but for later Bills, and at any rate going half way to meeting the point raised by the hon. Member for Devonport, was the giving of some protection to the retailer. Many of us know fun well that under the Obscene Publications Act there is little defence for the man who is in possession of obscene material and who can be prosecuted under that Act.
In those ways the Bill has been improved. I should like to draw attention to one aspect which should be underlined. We have not sought to define horror comics in the Bill, because one cannot define horror comics with exactitude. The Home Office had obviously studied the question and decided that it was not possible to get a definition to which objection would not be taken. Five safeguards have been given. It is

only when we look at them that we see that no publisher, author or printer could possibly come within the ambit of the Bill, unless he is engaged in this class of traffic.
The five safeguards should be taken collectively: first, that it is a
book, magazine or other like work;
secondly, that it is a story "told in pictures"; thirdly, that it portrays
the commission of crimes; or acts of violence; or cruelty or incidents of a repulsive or horrible nature;
fourthly. that it would "tend to corrupt"; and, fifthly, that it is a "child or young person."
By hedging it, not by definition but by these five terms, we have been able to provide adequate safeguards for all those engaged in the honourable profession of being a publisher or those who are employed to print. It is for that reason that I believe that the temper of the House has changed entirely since Second Reading. Judging from the speeches delivered recently, I believe that everybody, even those who had some misgivings on some aspects, has come to agreement during the course of our proceedings. If that is not one of the greatest assets of the House of Commons, then I do not know what is.
I am sorry that the Press should not be in a position to publish the change of views which has taken place, but I hope that at least there will be some memory left behind, and that when we come to deal with obscene publications, as we may next year or within a few years, it will not be said from the Treasury Bench, whoever is in office then, "On the horror comics Bill you took this view; why should not you take the same view now?"
With those words of warning, I warmly commend the Bill. I associate myself with all that has been said about the liberal attitude and background of the most excellent Tory now in occupation of the post of Home Secretary.

8.2 p.m.

Mr. Douglas Houghton: I do not welcome the Bill. I thought it unnecessary when it was introduced, and I think it still less necessary now. Nevertheless, I certainly join with hon. Members on both sides of the House in expressing appreciation of the way in which the Home Secretary and his hon.
Friend the Joint Under-Secretary have dealt with their complex and difficult task. I am sure that the whole House is grateful to both of them for the tolerant and helpful spirit in which they have dealt with the many matters put before them.
I am glad to speak after my hon. Friend the Member for Stechford (Mr. Roy Jenkins) because, with his greater study of this problem, he has fortified me in the quite moderate criticisms that I express of the Bill. I had no opportunity of expressing my views during Second Reading and it would have been unsuitable for me to have sought to divide the House upon it. Had the opportunity occurred, I should certainly have voted against Second Reading.
It is true that there was an outburst of public indignation last year about horror comics, but I think that an expression of public indignation can sometimes be left to do its own work. I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Stechford that it does not necessarily follow that moral indignation should be written into legislation. In the whole of the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Southampton, Test (Dr. King), to whom we all listen with close attention on matters of this kind, there was not a single word about parents. One would have thought that they did not exist, that they had no duties, or that, if they did exist, they were quite ineffective.
In the eloquent and vivid picture which my hon. Friend drew, his colours were much too heavily over-painted. That was the feeling I had when listening to his speech. I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Stechford that we know far too little about the impact of publications of different kinds upon the human mind. I wonder whether the formidable array of witnesses against me is really as strong as we are led to believe.
Recently I heard of a boy who was denied by his parents the pleasure of playing with toy soldiers on the ground that they tend to corrupt. He was given a fire brigade instead and, very shortly, the firemen were laying about on the floor. When his mother asked what had happened, the boy said, "A man has just been in and cut their throats and they are all bleeding to death." No doubt he was expressing something. I do not know whether he got it from a horror comic.
Did hon. Members see that short story competition in the "Observer" a few weeks ago, and the essay of a girl of 15, who wrote such an imaginative piece of writing that it received special mention? It was the most bloodthirsty story that I have ever heard from a boy or girl. I do not suppose that she was brought up on horror comics.
Yesterday I interviewed a young lad in my constituency who has been to a Borstal institution, and who was recently sentenced to a term of imprisonment for further crimes. I talked to him about the future. He has never seen a horror comic but he is thoroughly corrupt. What he seems to be corrupted by most is Leslie Charteris and the "Saint Club" and the whole library of detective fiction which apparently one can get from that source. Indeed, he appreciated it so much that he gave a donation to the "Saint Club" out of the proceeds of a theft.
When we are talking of corruption we are to a large extent in an unknown world. I think that, very frequently, grown-ups tend to think that certain things will corrupt children because they would corrupt them. There is much more horror in horror comics to grown-ups than there is to most children. However, I have the great majority of the House against me, and all the witnesses from the United States whom my hon. Friend, the Member for Southampton, Test recently brought back with him. I should still wish to dissent from the Bill but for the two things put in it during the Committee stage, to which the hon. Member for the Isle of Thanet (Mr. Rees-Davies) referred: first, the requirement that in England and Wales a prosecution requires the consent of the Attorney-General and, second, the provision, towards the end of the Bill, about its duration.
Those are the two redeeming features which make the Bill, if not acceptable, at least tolerable to some of us who otherwise would feel that it was a Measure which should still be opposed. After all, we are asked to legislate for some erosion, however slight, however worthy, into one of the fundamental freedoms in this country. That alone justifies the most careful scrutiny of what we are doing, and the closest examination of the reasons for doing it.
Liberty is eaten away in little bits. It is rare that it goes in one fell swoop.
One thing leads to another, and I rarely have any confidence that an Act on one occasion will not be used as a precedent on another. I have had far too much connection with public administration to under-rate the importance of precedents to those who have to deal with either administration or legislation.
We shall see how the Bill operates. I hope and pray that it will not be necessary for any prosecutions to be undertaken under the Bill. I hope that public indignation, coupled with the determination of Her Majesty's Government to legislate, if necessary, against this evil, will have achieved the purpose which all set out to achieve. I think it may be a matter for congratulation if, at the end of the day, we find that it has not been necessary to undertake prosecutions under the Bill.
I do not know whether the first act of Her Majesty's Government ought to be to remove the "horror comics" from the ceiling of the Crypt off Westminster Hall. There is depicted someone being boiled in a cauldron; there is someone being toasted on a grill; there is someone being stoned to death—all on the ceiling of the Crypt within the precincts of the Palace of Westminster. If they are not comics, they are certainly horrifying. They are all of a repulsive or horrible nature, and I commend them to the attention of the Minister responsible.
I end on a serious note. If the House passes this Bill, as undoubtedly it will, I trust that those of us who have been critical of its provisions, who have supported Amendments with the intention of keeping this Measure narrowly to its avowed purpose, will not be misunderstood in our purpose. and that it will be believed that our convictions in this matter are still held just as strongly.

8.13 p.m.

Mr. F. P. Bishop: I should like to say a word or two as one who has been connected with the Press for many years, and who believes, very strongly, in the freedom of the Press. I am the more moved to say something now, because a large part of the Press is in the unusual and very painful position of being unable to speak for itself.
I wish to make it clear that I do not agree with the hon. Member for Sowerby (Mr. Houghton) or with those newspapers which have expressed the opinion that this

Bill is unnecessary at the present time. I think it is necessary, but I consider that it is a necessary evil. It is necessary because it is quite clear that the Government and this House had to do something to check the gross evil of the horror comic as it has been made known to us in the last few months. That duty I do not think the House or the Government could have avoided or should have sought to avoid.
However, the Bill, if necessary, is still in itself evil. In the first place, it is evil because all censorship is evil. I believe that freedom of publication in all normal circumstances, however much it may be abused, is better than a censorship, however high-minded it may be and however good the intention. It may be said that all legislation is a necessary evil, but I think that that applies particularly in a case such as this; because, normally, legislation brought in to deal hurriedly with an important and suddenly apparent necessity proves, in the long run, generally to be bad legislation.
This Bill has emerged from its Committee and Report stages in a form in which the worst of those troubles have been avoided. It is a better Bill than it appeared to be when it was first presented. I join with the hon. Member for Sowerby in his hope that prosecutions under this Measure will never prove necessary. The best that I can hope for it is that it may prove to be a dead letter. I hope that the exposure of the evil of the horror comic has roused public opinion sufficiently to enable it to do this job, which can be done better and more effectively by an informed public opinion than by legislation. Necessary evil though it be, in all the circumstances I reluctantly support the Bill.

8.16 p.m.

Mr. Foot: An hon. Member opposite said it was interesting to note how tempers have improved during our discussions on this Bill. I consider that there is something in what he said. although, if there has been any change in temper, I think it has been on the part of the Government.
The Committee stage was started with the Government adopting an almost totalitarian outlook. They seemed a little tetchy at the idea that anyone should propose Amendments. We were grateful to be informed, later, that it


was quite proper to move Amendments and we appreciated that change of mind.
The Government learned that it was wiser to deal with the matter in an accommodating spirit and the Amendments we moved resulted in a much better Bill. Most of the bouquets showered on the Home Secretary this evening have reached him precisely because of the Amendments from one side of the House or the other. The right hon. and gallant Gentleman should be extremely grateful to us for enabling his hon. Friends to pay tributes to him in the terms in which they have been paid.
Had it not been for our demand that the Attorney-General should have the duty of ordering a prosecution; had it not been for our demand that the Bill should be limited in its terms; had it not been for our demand that the retailer should, at any rate, have some protection, it would not have been possible for the last two speeches by hon Members opposite to have been made at all. We now have a much more agreeable atmosphere precisely because the Government have made concessions.
The most interesting fact is that the Government, by an Amendment, have admitted the case advanced by those of us most critical of the Bill. It is rare that a Bill is introduced by a Government about which it is said, in the eloquent terms used by my hon. Friend the Member for Southampton, Test (Dr. King), that it is an excellent Bill, a marvellous Bill and should have been introduced earlier; and, at the same time, the Government say, "We shall bring it to an end in ten years' time." There is an admission by the Government that they are dealing with a very delicate subject.
It is such a delicate subject that all Bills passed in an endeavour to impose a censorship authority become perverted for some other purpose. The reason is that no authority is in a position to discriminate about what is liberty and what is licence; what is good and what is bad; what should be allowed and what should not. No authority can, over a long period, exercise such a decision in an impartial and proper fashion. Therefore, almost every Measure exerting a kind of censorship on the right to

print or speak which has ever been introduced anywhere in the world, has almost always been perverted after a number of years; because it is impossible to establish a censoring authority which can do the job properly. This is borne out by almost every Bill of censorship which has ever been introduced in this or any other country.
Every Bill which is introduced for censoring something is introduced with the idea that it will stamp out something damnable. Nobody introduces a censoring Bill for the purpose of stamping out something that is good, or something that the persons who are stamping it out think is good. They always say that the thing is horrible beyond belief. That is what was said in the days when the censorship of plays was introduced in this country. It was done to stamp out the horror, filth and sexual perversion that was purveyed in the Restoration plays.
It may be that there was a strong case for that. One of my hon. Friends on this side of the House thinks that there is an extremely strong case for, as he said, regulating the publishers. This is why every proposal for censorship must be examined with special care, because it is almost inevitable that it will be perverted after a certain period. As far as I can recall, there is no Measure of censorship that has ever been passed by this House of Commons which has not been used for a bad purpose eventually, however highminded the motives of those who introduced it in the first place.
My hon. Friend the Member for Southampton, Test made an extremely eloquent and powerful attack, as everyone will agree, on horror comics. He made it dogmatically, and he has every right to do so, with a great deal of detail supporting his dogmas. But there are many authorities in the United States who claim to have examined the subject quite as carefully as the authorities whom my hon. Friend quoted, who say that the publications which really do damage to the young minds of the United States are not the horror comics but the tabloids.
Many authorities in the United States say that if one gives to a child a portrayal of fiction, which is what the horror comic does, and compares it with the damage done by the tabloids, which are purveying truth in a sadistic fashion, as my hon. Friend described, the evidence points to


the fact that those who are purveying the sadistic and the morbid excitement about sex, to quote my hon. Friend's own phrase—and there were many others that he used—have a much bigger impact on the child's mind in purporting to portray the truth in this sadistic fashion than in purporting to portray fiction. There are some very big authorities who make this claim.
Therefore, we get into the danger that if we are saying that it is good to provide this kind of protection, it is right that it should be provided by legislation rather than by parents doing it and by other means; that once we start on that, we must carry the censorship much further. That is why I cited, in our previous debates, the kind of stuff that is purveyed by some of the so-called popular newspapers in this country. In my view, it has a much more damaging effect upon young minds than what is done by the horror comics. Nevertheless, I am against legislating about them, and I am sure that the hon. Member for Wembley, South (Mr. Russell) is against legislating against newspapers who dabble in this kind of stuff. I think it is foul and loathesome, but once we establish the principle that we can deal with it by legislation, we are deep in the mire of censorship.
Therefore, that is why some of us have been so concerned about the Bill and is, first, the reason why we have tried to point out the general dangers; secondly, why we have tried to limit the operations of the Bill and, thirdly, why we have tried to argue that if the Government were to deal with this delicate subject they could have dealt with it much more comprehensively and in a way which would have put it into its proper context. That was why we had doubts.
Some of our doubts have been removed, but the Government certainly must not accept this Bill as a precedent for anything else whatsoever. Indeed, I would go further and say that although we have the limitattion of this Bill being removed from the Statute Book ten years hence, as we hope it will be, if this Government or the Government which follows them, and the Home Secretary who follows the present Home Secretary, introduce a Bill to deal with the general law of obscenity, I would hope that this present Bill could be wiped off the Statute Book and dealt with under the

same law, when we could discuss the phrase, which I still think is the worst phrase in the whole of the Bill, "tend to corrupt".
Nobody knows what this phrase means or can define it. No court of law can really understand what it means. In other words, we give to magistrates all over the country a vague phrase which different courts can interpret in a different fashion. We think that that is wrong. In dealing with any matter of censorship, the law ought to be defined as strictly as possible, so that there cannot be any possibility of its being interpreted in this wide and different fashion. Therefore, although we give this Bill a Third Reading, I hope that it will be buried long before the ten-year period which the Government have been willing to accept in view of our entreaties.

8.25 p.m.

Mr. Norman Cole: I listened with very great care to what the hon. Member for Devonport (Mr. Foot) has just said. It is true that legislation sometimes becomes applied afterwards to matters different from that for which it was originally intended, but that is not peculiar to this form of legislation. I would go further, and say that if it is thought that legislation cannot always cover all possible developments of the next few years, that is no reason why we should not tackle the problem, which is what we have been trying to do specifically in this Bill.
I like to be a little more realistic about this matter. I appreciate the principles that the hon. Member for Devonport has stated, but I am concerned about the children to whom horror comics have been and might well again become, available; and that is the purpose to which the House has devoted itself in passing the Bill.
The hon. Member for Sowerby (Mr. Houghton) treated us to an interesting analysis of corruption and horror. I agree with what he said. He said that many adults who read horror comics are more struck with the horror of them than a child would be. The word that the hon. Member needs to add is" consciously" struck. When one is dealing with the question of the corruption of a child it must be remembered that the


child himself does not know what is happening to him. It is the corruption which becomes an insidious process in the child's mind, so that by the time he is an adolescent or adult, the pattern of his life, morals, and thought has been determined by what he has read in his earlier years.
The reason that we are here this evening is that we appreciate the horror and corruption which these comics and other things like them can bring. It is because the child does not appreciate the corrupting effect of these comics that we are legislating to prevent their being allowed to fall into children's hands. That is a realistic way of looking at the matter.
I have said before that we cannot look, through an adult's mind, into the reactions of a child in reading these comics or any other kind of publication like them. We have got to look into the child's mind realising that the child does not know, but realising that that child, over the years, if it sees sufficient of this kind of material, may well think that that is how the world is conducted and lives. The sooner we can take action to stop the child getting that wrong and corrupting idea of his fellow men, the better we shall be doing a good job of work in the House of Commons.
Faint praise has been given to the Bill during its Third Reading stage. I want to remind the House of a remark which was made, I think, by the right hon. Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede) earlier in these debates. He said that one firm has indicated that if the Bill did not become law, it would start publication of these things again. I believe that that is quite likely.
What would have been the psychological effect, not only on that firm and on the other firms who are making money from this business, but on the people, our constituents, if we had abandoned or withdrawn the Bill once it had been introduced into the House of Commons? It would have been tantamount to saying either that we cannot tackle this problem or that it is not sufficiently important to demand our attention. In that case, within a few months we might have had a spate of these horror comics starting up again.
The hon. Member for Sowerby said he hoped that there would be no prosecutions under the Bill. I agree. We do

not pass laws merely to facilitate prosecutions; we pass them to try to foster the welfare and comfort of our people. If the effect of passing this Bill into law is to stop the sort of action which will lead to prosecutions, I shall be happy. If all the legislation that we passed was observed by the people and did not lead to a single prosecution it would indeed be a happy state of affairs.
During the last two years much public indignation has been expressed about horror comics, but public indignation is not enough. There are always those who may want to purchase this kind of periodical. Public indignation, unsupported by legislation where necessary, is not sufficient to stop this evil, which is damaging our country.
In handling the Bill from its early stages right up to this final stage, my right hon. and gallant Friend has had a most peculiar task which does not often fall to the lot of Ministers. First, he had to bring forward legislation upon a matter which, for the time being, had ceased to be present in our midst—because the publication of these horror comics had stopped. He had to bring forward this legislation also in the atmosphere of wider legislation—which we all know will come in the course of the next few years—upon similar and allied topics. He had to bring it forward knowing that there were many people who, quite properly, were jealous of the preservation of our liberties. In those somewhat unusual circumstances he has succeeded in piloting through a Measure which will be to our future benefit, and will stamp out an evil.
I was glad when the Bill was introduced, and I hope that it will be passed into law without delay. I believe that it is framed in such a way as to stop not only those publications of which we have knowledge but publications of a similar character, with similar corruptive effects, which some clever publisher might try to evolve in an endeavour to get round the requirements of the Bill. We should be concerned, not only with horror comics, but with the ingenuity of man, of which we have all had experience. I hope that the Bill will be able, to deal with certain persons who may, for their own financial benefit, seek to publish material which will have the same corrupting effect as horror comics.
Finally, I commend my right hon. and gallant Friend upon the passage of the Bill through the House, and I trust that we shall give it a Third Reading.

8.33 p.m.

Mr. Ede: I congratulate the right hon. and gallant Gentleman for having had the courage to introduce the Bill. He must have known the kind of trouble he was going to run into—and I think that he has met it wisely. He has included all the Amendments which I asked for during the Second Reading debate, which shows that he is responsive to reason. It was not until we got beyond reason that he proved to be unresponsive.
I was brought up on Milton. About 1902 I bought the copy of Milton's prose works which I hold in my hand. Its present condition shows that I have paid it the respect of frequently consulting it. It has not been without notice that Milton has been quoted more than once in the course of our proceedings. I want to claim him as a supporter of the Bill. In one of the most impressive passages of his great work addressed to this House he says this:
That also which is impious or evil absolutely either against faith or manners, no law can possibly permit, that intends not to unlaw itself.
I say of the horror comic that it is evil absolutely; against manners in this country. The pressure that was brought to bear on the right hon. and gallant Gentleman by many hon. Members, when not a single syllable was said in defence of these publications, proves that there is a substantial volume of opinion in this country which does regard these things as absolutely evil. There is no redeeming feature in them at all.
At one stage, we were told that the Bill was suppressing ideas. Well, not all ideas are good; there are plenty of bad ideas held on the other side of the House, which I oppose as strongly as I can. These ideas which we are here legislating against are bad in morals. I do not accept the doctrine which was put forward by my hon. Friend for Sowerby (Mr. Houghton) that we should leave this matter to the parents.
I have spent a great part of my life trying to protect children from parents who wanted to have them employed at unreasonable hours in unreasonable circum

stances. I recollect that once, when I was a teacher, His Majesty's Inspector of Schools came into my room and questioned the boys on geography at 2 o'clock in the afternoon, and at 2.15 one boy went to sleep. The inspector said, "That boy is alseep." I said, "I know he is. He has paid you a great compliment. When I take the class he goes to sleep at 2 o'clock. He has given you a quarter of an hour extra."
That boy had been to the railway station at 6 o'clock that morning to collect milk. During the dinner hour he had to clean out the float, and he was going back to a milk round for the second time after school in the afternoon. I said to the inspector, "The thing to teach that boy is that he has got one pal in the world, if it is only his teacher."
We have to protect children from parents who exploit their children, or who would exploit them. Fortunately, there is no part of the country now where such employment can take place legally. We had to fight parents as well as employers—in fact, sometimes, parents rather more than employers—in our efforts to achieve that.
The House, in the last 150 years, has legislated many times to give exceptional protection to children—in mind, in physique and in manners. Therefore. This Bill requires no justification as an invasion of the right of the parents. We are pursuing a policy which since the days of Fielden has always been the policy of this House. I am, therefore, wholeheartedly in favour of the Bill. The majority of my hon. Friends are also in favour of it.
We welcome the steps that have been taken to respond to public opinion. Let us be quite certain that public opinion is always stronger when it has made itself effective through a reasonable Measure passed by the House. Public opinion sometimes feels very strongly yet is unable to make itself effective because the House withholds its disapprobation of that which public opinion condemns. I was therefore very glad when my hon. Friend the Member for Devonport (Mr. Foot) said that we had made this a very much better Bill. If it was not a good Bill to start with it could not be made better.
I share my hon. Friend's objections to some of the Sunday papers, to whose


coroneted owners my hon. Friend dispensed not coronets but crowns. We know of Warwick the Kingmaker; here is Devonport the kingmaker in the realm of the Sunday papers. I understand that they are to be left to carry on their villainies in order that my hon. Friend may have joyful half-hours in this House denouncing them. I share his views, but I would not go so far as he does in advertising those newspapers. He had better direct adult opinion against them than rely on this House to do it.
I am very doubtful about such things as the censorship that we imposed on the publications of the report of divorces, and whether in the end we achieved what the promoters of the ideas wanted to achieve. For instance, there are a good many more divorces because people think that they can be obtained without publicity, than there would be if the full details were known.
I welcomed the speech made by my hon. Friend the Member for Southampton, Test (Dr. King). The philosophy which he expressed was sound, and represents, to my knowledge, the opinion of educational experts in this country and in other parts of the English-speaking world. Do not let us think that such legislation as this is confined to this country. Canada attempted it, New Zealand has achieved it, I think, and South Africa—whom I am reluctant to quote in anything that has to do with civil liberty—has been much more savage than anybody else.

Mr. Foot: What about Franco's Spain? Has it done it, too?

Mr. Ede: I rather think that Franco would like these ideas to get into people so as to make them really tough.
The Measure before us is an improvement on all the other Measures in the various parts of the English-speaking world because it has proceeded on the lines of what the hon. Member for the Isle of Thanet (Mr. Rees-Davies) called" the five safeguards" in the definition in Clause 1.
I am sure that these cases will go before juries—if they get to juries—and will not be settled in magistrates' courts. Every person charged under the Bill if any is charged—will take refuge in the fact that the maximum penalty is four months' imprisonment and that he can claim,

therefore, to go before a jury. No one can prevent him from knowing that he can go before a jury, because the magistrates' clerk in the court of summary jurisdiction has to draw that fact to his notice before the man pleads to the charge. I am quite certain that the way in which Clause 1 is drafted—particularly now that the words in brackets have been removed—will mean that these cases will almost certainly be tried before juries.
This Bill is negative. The problem has to be approached positively as well as negatively. Milton, to quote him again from the same work as I have previously mentioned, said:
And were I the chooser, a dram of well doing should be preferred before many times as much hindrance of evil doing.
I hope that publishers will prepare for children, at about the same price as these productions sell at, suitable reading matter, suitably illustrated, that can take the place of those publications. There is plenty of good material that can be used. The wife of a right hon. Friend of mine complained that she could not get for her boy aged eight anything that he could read. There were plenty of books for girls, but few for boys.
I gave him a copy of "The Maneaters of Tsavo," which I used, as a teacher. to preserve discipline in the class. When the children started playing me up about Wednesday I said "I shall read you nothing of the Maneaters of Tsavo' on Friday afternoon." That was sufficient to ensure that reasonable discipline was preserved. Unfortunately my right hon. Friend's son got into trouble for insisting on reading the book after he had been ordered to put out his light at night. There are plenty of fascinating stories of that kind, with reasonable narrative, plenty of legitimate excitement, plenty of adventure, that can be used in place of these appalling things that the House has decided it will suppress.
I trust that there will be no prosecutions. I join with my hon. Friends in hoping that at the end of 10 years, it will not be necessary to renew this Measure. I want to make it quite plain, however, that I am giving no pledges about another Bill which we have heard during discussions on this one. I was doubtful as to the attitude which I ought to adopt about that until I saw the way


in which it was used in the discussion on this present Measure. That convinced me that, if there is a free vote when that Bill is before us, I shall not support it. On behalf of the majority of my hon. Friends on this side I want to give this Bill a warm welcome, and to express the hope that it may be effective in stamping out an evil which is a disgrace to the people who have been propagating it in our midst.

8.49 p.m.

Mr. F. Blackburn: My interventions during previous stages of the Bill have at least had one merit—brevity—even though they may not have found universal acceptance. I cannot think that my hon. Friend the Member for Devonport (Mr. Foot) would be pleased with any of my interventions. I should like to tell my hon. Friend the Member for Sowerby (Mr. Houghton) that my objection to the horror comic is not because of any fear I may have of its effect upon myself, but of its effect on immature minds.
It is not my intention to delay the House very long, but I should not like to part company with the Bill without expressing my own personal satisfaction that this attempt has been made to deal with a very objectionable social evil. Last year, the "Financial Times" published figures showing that 60 million copies of comics of alien origin were circulated in the United Kingdom in 1953, which shows the proportion to which this problem has grown. It is criminal that a single penny of foreign currency should have been spent in this way, whether for the comics themselves or for the matrices.
We all know quite well what we mean by a horror comic. but the difficulty arises when we try to define one. In fact, the hon. Member for the Isle of Thanet (Mr. Rees-Davies) pointed out that in the Bill there is no real definition of the horror comic. However that may be, in my view, though they may not be a perfect definition, those words are adequate for this purpose and will not prove difficult of interpretation.
During the previous stages of the Bill, there was at times a tendency to overlook the fact that this was a Bill for one specific purpose, and one only. I never shared the fears of some of my hon. and right hon. Friends that the net cast by the Bill might bring in the wrong fish.
However, the Amendment which was accepted by the Government and now appears in the Bill in Clause 2 (2), providing that no prosecution shall be instituted except by or with the consent of the Attorney-General, means that no prosecutions will be frivolously undertaken. That should relieve the anxiety of the most ardent defender of the literary or artistic licence. Personally, like some other hon. Members, I anticipate that there will be very few prosecutions, for I believe that the mere fact of the passing of this Bill will to a large extent achieve the object which hon. and right hon. Members on both sides of the House have in mind.
There is one small criticism that I should like to make. I regret that the Government have not thought fit, on Report, to specify penalties under Clause 4, which deals with importations. However, having said that, I should like to express my thanks to the Home Secretary for having so readily acceded to what I believe was the general wish of both sides of the House.
I welcome the Bill. It is short, but its importance far transcends its length. We can all take pleasure in legislation for the protection of children, but in this case we have legislated more particularly in the interests of the emotionally unstable and the mentally retarded, two classes in special need of protection. I hope that there will be a unanimous vote for the Third Reading of the Bill.

8.53 p.m.

Mr. E. Fletcher: Compliments have been showered on the Home Secretary about the Bill, but I rather agreed with what was said by my hon. Friend the Member for Devonport (Mr. Foot). I should have said that it was partly due to my hon. Friend the Member for Southampton, Test (Dr. King) that this Bill will be passed tonight, because I recollect the very moving speech, with all of which I did not entirely agree, which he made in the debate on the Address last November. Apart from my hon. Friend, I think the credit for the achievement in this Bill should go to my hon. Friends on these benches who put down a series of Amendments, many of them accepted by the Government, which, as far as we are concerned, have very considerably improved the Bill.
Like others on both sides of the House who have taken part in the debates, I welcome the Bill, with some reservations. There is an admitted evil to be dealt with, and the mere fact that a Bill has been introduced and is to be passed is having and will have a salutary effect in stopping the publication of horror comics. Moreover, the mere fact that during the debate hon. Members on this side of the House, and to some extent hon. Members opposite, have been so vigilant in seeing that the essential liberties of the subject and of the Press are respected will have a salutary effect on both this and future Governments.
Much has been heard about the Amendment accepted by the Government as a result of which no prosecution will be launched under the Bill except with the Attorney-General's consent. The House has come to realise that in many respects that has been the bedrock of the Amendments and safeguards which many of us have desired to see inserted. I want to say a word about the Home Secretary's observations on that subject on Third Reading.
It is perhaps not quite unprecedented, but it is nevertheless a very unusual feature in our criminal legislation, to pass such an important Bill as this and to insert in it that no prosecution under it shall take place without the consent of the Attorney-General. It goes to show what several hon. Members have felt—that the mere passage into law of the Bill will in itself have a deterrent effect and, we hope, will make it unnecessary for prosecutions to be launched.
But, as has been pointed out, it places a heavy responsibility on the Attorney-General. The Home Secretary told us that in exercising this discretion the Attorney-General would be exercising a quasi-judicial function. That is true, but it is also true that he may be exercising a quasi-political function because I imagine—I do not know—that his action in either giving or withholding consent to a prosecution will be the exercise of a Ministerial action which can be challenged in the House. At any rate, I very much hope that that is the case.
I hope that the Attorney-General's action, although quasi-judicial in nature, will also expose him to criticism in the

House if any hon. Member thinks it unjustified. That is not an unimportant aspect because, as my hon. Friend the Member for Stechford (Mr. Roy Jenkins) has already reminded us, the "Manchester Guardian" is still disturbed by the Bill in its present form.
I do not regard it as a perfect Bill, and I think it capable of improvement in this respect, and we should, therefore, still remind ourselves, while there is an opportunity of further revision in another place, of the very weighty criticism expressed in today's "Manchester Guardian" about this assumed safeguard of the Attorney-General's consent being required to a prosecution.
What the "Manchester Guardian" said—and it was not fully answered by the Home Secretary—was this:
What one wants to see written in somewhere is a sentence to make quite sure that the Bill cannot be used to suppress an attempt in good faith to describe accurately real things or events, horrible in themselves, to which public attention ought to be called, whatever the effect might be on a young person into whose hands the publication might fall. Nothing in the Bill as drafted stops up this loophole.
That is what some of us still think.
In view of what the Home Secretary has said, I feel that the consent of the Attorney-General may to some extent reduce the size of that loophole, but it is still one on which organs of public opinion with the tradition of the" Manchester Guardian" are entitled to be fully satisfied. I hope, therefore, that either by a re-emphasis of what the Home Secretary has said, or by an improvement in another place, this Bill, which has already been so much improved as a result of its passage through this House, may be still further improved.

9.2 p.m.

Mr. William Keenan: I have waited longo for this opportunity and perhaps I ought to congratulate myself on concluding this debate. First, may I suggest that my right hon. Friend the Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede) might send a copy of Milton to the Director of Public Prosecutions. I am sure that that would be valuable.
I regret very much that the Government have agreed to two Amendments which, in my judgment, weaken the Bill. There has been too much concern for


those responsible for this evil of the publication of horror comics and similar papers, as well as for those responsible for importing and peddling them. I have listened to that desire to protect them throughout every stage of the Bill. It has been said, "In the cause of liberty, do not let us interfere with freedom."

Mr. Houghton: It was not to protect those people, but to prevent injustice.

Mr. Keenan: I have always held the opinion that there is a great deal of justice in this country and that no one who is prosecuted in the courts receives injustice. Certainly, the legal profession is helpful.

There has been a great deal of talk about the freedom of the Press, about the freedom of this and the freedom of that, by many hon. Members during the Committee stage and again this afternoon. In my view, the opinions so expressed are often determined by commercial interests. For instance, those in favour of independent television were generally those who had an interest in advertising, and so on. There has been violent criticism of this legislation, for the purpose of clipping its wings, by those whose opinions are determined largely by commercial interests, by those who sell—

Mr. Ronald Bell: Is the hon. Gentleman suggesting that any hon. Member on this side of the House is commercially interested in the selling or peddling of horror comics?

Mr. Keenan: I did not say that. I was pointing out that they had a commercial interest in the trade which dealt with them and some part of which was responsible for publishing them. If I am called upon to clarify what I said, which the hon. Gentleman apparently requires, I meant to say that as between publisher and publisher, lawyer and lawyer, and journalist and journalist, they have rather similar interests and protect each other when occasion arises. I felt, and I still feel, that on this occasion we had

expressions of that spirit in protection of the interests the operations of which the Bill is designed to curtail and limit.

Mr. N. Nicolson: I am the only publisher who has spoken in our debates. I must point out to the hon. Gentleman that in everything I said I tried to strengthen the Bill against the publishers of horror comics, and a few minutes ago I gave it, on behalf of the whole of my profession, the warmest welcome I could because it is directed against something that we want to root out.

Mr. Keenan: I heard the hon. Gentleman's speech about an hour and a half ago, and I know that he complimented the Government upon having brought the Bill to Third Reading, but I recollect that he was associated with, and, if I remember rightly, spoke to, certain Amendments with which I profoundly disagreed, and which I should have liked the Government to have rejected.
On this subject, a lot of nonsense has been talked from different quarters of the House about liberty, as though we ought to provide an anarchist-Communist State where all the people can do as they like and no one has any rules at all. That may be a very desirable State for the person who can get away with it, but in human society we cannot have that. After all, over the centuries we have built up legislation and regulations to protect people, and in this Bill we are trying to protect children. I agree with the hon. Member who said that we want to protect parents as well as children, and it was also said that the children require protection from some of the parents.
The feeling which has culminated in the Bill is a clear indication that children require to be protected from those publishers and people who will disturb the morality of the nation if they are allowed to do so. I welcome the in spite of its limitations.
Question put and agreed to.
Bill accordingly read the Third time and passed.

Orders of the Day — BRITISH MUSEUM BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

9.9 p.m.

The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Henry Brooke): I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
It is for the advancement of scientific research that I am asking the House to give a Second Reading to this short Bill. Its main purpose is to render it possible for objects in the collection of the Natural History Museum in South Kensington to be lent abroad for research purposes. At present, if the Trustees desire to make a loan of that kind, they have no statutory authority to do so. The Bill will free their hands in a direction in which the House, with its constant interest in scientific advance, will, I hope, agree that they ought to have freedom.
I do not know how familiar hon. and right hon. Gentlemen are with the Natural History Museum as it is today. I used to be taken there as a small boy. In recent years I have several times been up its steps again, and if anyone imagines that it is a place of interest only to experts and children, I advise them to go there and see for themselves what fascinating evidence it contains of the extraordinary wonders of the world in which we live.
The Natural History Museum is under the same body of Trustees as is the British Museum. The difference between the two collections is that the Natural History Museum covers distinctive branches of science, zoology, entomology, geology, mineralogy and botany. I lay no claim to expert knowledge of any of these sciences, but it will not surprise the House to learn that they have nowadays reached such a high level of specialisation that experts in any given aspect of their study are very few, and are scattered all over the world.
In the case, for instance, of a collection of harvest mites, the best advice on their identification can be obtained in some instances only by referring them to an expert on the Continent. I am told that the leading experts on certain kinds of spiders are to be found in Paris. Obscure examples of the minute crop pests known

as thrips ought to be sent in some instances to the United States, in other instances to South Africa, for accurate identification.
The Bill will empower the Trustees, when such specimens come into their possession, to refer them to the appropriate expert in any part of the world for comparison, identification, research and report. There will be practical benefit from this, not only to the foreign scientists, but to the Natural History Museum itself, which is not in a position to make the best possible use of the specimens if it is not able to know with precise certainty exactly what they are.
Furthermore scientists all over the world are working on some problems which can be solved only by reference to material which is to be found in our Natural History Museum and nowhere else. The powers in the Bill will enable the Trustees, of course, under proper safeguards, to lend specimens which might enable important research projects to be carried through to success.
In the scientific world. I am sure the House would agree, all such services should be reciprocal. The Natural History Museum is constantly indebted to other institutions for the loan of the material needed for furtherance of scientific research carried on in the Museum here. I must emphasise that under the present state of the law the Trustees are not empowered to reciprocate.
I feel sure that the House will appreciate that the kind of work which I have described has its relevance, not only in the rarefied atmosphere of pure science, but in practical results of high importance for medicine and agriculture which can flow from the accurate identification of specimens which come into the Museum's possession. It would be impossible for the staff of the Museum, highly skilled as it is, to include experts in every variety of organism or material.
Up to now I have described Clause 1. Clause 2 is something of a curiosity but I hope to prove to the House that it is valuable. It will empower the Trustees to destroy objects in the collections of the Natural History Museum which are deteriorating or infested. Think a moment, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, of the animals and birds which I have no doubt you have seen at South Kensington, and


you will realise that in the course of years objects of that sort are liable to become infested with moth, worm or beetle.
It is quite impossible to prevent that happening occasionally in so large a collection. When it happens, those objects not only cease to have any value to the museum but obviously they become something of a menace to the rest of the collection. Clause 2 will make it lawful for the Trustees to have them destroyed.
The House may well inquire why it is necessary to come to Parliament for power to get rid of an infested giraffe—I am not saying that we have an infested giraffe at the moment. Here I come to the curiosity. The main British Museum Act was passed 202 years ago—in 1753—and Section 9 of that Act provides that the collections
… hall remain and be preserved therein for Publick Use to all Posterity.
Since then it is true that there have been further statutes empowering the Trustees to get rid of duplicate articles and, under certain conditions, to sell objects which they no longer think fit to keep, but I am advised that there is no power whatever to destroy, and the destruction of these poor, inanimate, decaying creatures would appear to be a direct breach of Section 9 of the 1753 Act.
The Trustees are people who have every reason to wish to keep within the law. The Trustees include the Solicitor-General, the Attorney-General, the Master of the Rolls, the Lord Chief Justice and the Lord Chancellor, not to speak of the Archbishop of Canterbury, and one whom we should all wish to see emulating these other luminaries in law-abiding respectability, the right hon. Gentleman the Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede). Conspicuous among all, Mr. Speaker himself is actually included among the Trustees.
I know that the Trustees are anxious that the Bill should pass, not only to preserve their respectability, but because Clause 1 is really of the first importance. It is for the sake of Clause 1 that I bring forward the Bill, but I trust the House will agree that, since for the sake of Clause 1 it is desirable to legislate in any event, it is sensible to seize this opportunity of enacting Clause 2 also, thereby making sure that the Act of 1753 does not force Mr. Speaker or any of his distinguished colleagues into law-breaking

in order to get rid of the worms, the beetles and the moths.

9.20 p.m.

Mr. Ede: On behalf of my fellow Trustees, I should like to thank the Government for bringing forward this Bill. It has been under negotiation for a number of years; in fact, the preliminary negotiations took place under the former Government. The Bill has been reduced in its text so as to ask the House for nothing more than is absolutely necessary.
The Natural History Museum is, of course, the successor of the original collection. This consisted of objects gained in one way and another by Sir Hans Sloane which he left to the nation, and which were the cause of the passing of the British Museum Act, 1753. But the Natural History Museum is something more than a collection of curious objects. It is one of the greatest scientific investigating institutions in the world. It is frequently consulted by various Departments of Her Majesty's Government, such as the Colonial Office, and by the Governments of the Dominions, with regard to scientific knowledge; in connection with agriculture, in its widest sense, and fisheries, and on a great many Government activities, such as the storage of food. On these, this Museum has managed to establish an unrivalled position in the world.
The Financial Secretary said that this type of knowledge has now become highly specialised. The greatest experts in the world are to be found in practically all the civilised countries. One man may have specialised in some peculiar form of beetle which is of vital interest to a particular nation which is troubled because of some development in, for example, its agriculture. There are insects which are very inimical to domestic animals in various parts of the world and it is desirable that a free interchange both of knowledge and specimens should take place between different museums.
When one hears of the thousands of species of the smallest kinds of living things, and the tremendous difference in usefulness or destructiveness that a slight variation in related species will cause, one realises how important is this free interchange. In recent months the


Natural History Museum has had to ask the Danish Museum, in Copenhagen, the Australian Museum, in Sydney, and the Western Australian Museum, in Perth, for the loan of specimens of limbless lizards; the Museum in Lisbon for a swallow; and curiously enough, the Museum in Neuchatel for geckos from Portuguese Guinea.
The Paris Museum has sent us specimens of the click-beetle and the United States National Museum specimens of the food-pest beetle. The South African Museum, in Cape Town, and the Hungarian National Museum, in Budapest, have sent specimens of gnats. Incidentally, it is interesting to note that the exchange of scientific opinion and of specimens has taken place across, or through, the Iron Curtain.
The Brussels Museum, the Stockholm Museum and the Oslo Museum have lent us fossil fishes of the Devonian period for critical studies of stratigraphy. The Corindon Museum, of Nairobi, has also lent us botanical specimens, the Jamaica Institute has lent us plants for the flora of Jamaica, and from the Vienna Museum we have had minerals for X-ray analysis.
The astounding position is that we have to ask these various museums for these favours, which are readily given, but that when they ask us for a specimen for the purposes of study, we are unable, under the existing law, to send them one. I am quite sure the House will realise that in matters of this importance it is highly desirable that we should be able to keep on the good terms with foreign institutions of the same kind that this Bill will enable us to get.
I cannot help thinking that the House will feel that we ought to be in a position to reciprocate wholeheartedly. For instance, during the past year we have borrowed from museums outside this country 1,400 specimens for botanical research alone. I think that foreign museums, knowing the limitations under which we have been placed, have been exceedingly generous in giving the response to our requests that they have done. Clause 1 will place us in the position that is now held by practically every one of the great museums with which we are in correspondence.
As far as Clause 2 is concerned, we have to recall that of all the specimens that were left by Sir Hans Sloane, in 1753, not one has survived. Some of our predecessors must at some time during the last 200 years have broken the law and either lost, conveniently, or destroyed, specimens that had undoubtedly deteriorated; because, of course, the knowledge of preservation of animal and botanical specimens was by no means as advanced 200 years ago as it is today.
During the war, with all the troubles that then overtook the Museum, undoubtedly deterioration that would not otherwise have occurred took place in the circumstances of the time. The unfortunate thing is that, once a specimen begins to deteriorate, it may become infested with some of the parasites to which the Financial Secretary alluded; I would not descend to calling them vermin, because that has a political connotation that I do not want to bring into this discussion. Those specimens may have so deteriorated that it became necessary for the protection of the remainder of the exhibits to destroy those that are infested. In addition, there are some fossil bones that crumble or become abraded, so that they show no anatomical features at all. It is desirable that they should not be preserved when they may possibly mislead students, of whom a very large number are interested in the Museum and go there for study.
The Trustees are grateful to the Government for introducing the Bill, because British Museum Bills have always been matters of Government legislation. A suggestion was made at one time that the Museum might proceed either by way of a Private Bill or a private Member's Bill, but the Trustees felt that this Museum held an especial place among the Museums of the country and has always been the subject of Government legislation when it has been necessary for it to be considered by this House. We trust that the House will realise the necessity which has compelled us to come to it.
I should like to try to forestall a possible objection to the Bill on the ground that the scientific world has been considerably disturbed quite recently by the discovery that what was called the Piltdown Skull was a fake, and that a body which had been responsible for it


ought not to receive favourable consideration from the House. What happened in that matter was that a good many years ago a very skilful fake was undoubtedly planted upon the scientific world by a gentleman who may have had his own reasons for doing it—but the moment that modern methods of research enabled it to be established that the claims made for that specimen could not be maintained the Trustees made that plain to the world and made a complete confession.
I cannot help thinking that if, when, in some other walks of life, people discover that they have been deceived and, through that deception, have misled other people, they made an equally prompt and frank confession, intellectual life in this country might be a great deal easier.
I mention that only because I recollect that upon one occasion, when Mr. Speaker was question about the matter, he said that he had something better to do than look after a collection of old bones. I do not want to express any disrespectful views about one of the principal Trustees, either in that capacity or in his capacity as Speaker of this House, but I thought it only right to mention the matter. I dare say that some hon. Members have read the story which appeared in the "Sunday Times" over a succession of weeks, in which the whole history of the matter was laid before the country.
I trust that the House will feel that the two small provisions of the Bill will add to the reputation of this country as not merely a recipient but a giver of scientific information, and that we shall be able to take reasonable steps to preserve specimens from a deterioration that might spread to all by contamination from a few.

9.34 p.m.

Mr. W. M. F. Vane: I am sure that there will be little or no opposition to this small Bill and its very reasonable object, expressed in its two short Clauses. Until the right hon. Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede) spoke, I am sure that some of us thought that Clause 2 was nearly 200 years overdue. Since the Trustees had no power to destroy any of their exhibits which were infested by destructive organisms, we had visions of cellar after cellar stacked full of mouldering remains, of which the

Trustees had no statutory power to dispose.
The right hon. Gentleman has set our minds at rest on that score. He was very careful to explain that it was the predecessors of the present Trustees who have somehow lost or mislaid the whole of the original collection. If the present Trustees had pleaded guilty, I was wondering whether we should not have put something in the Bill by way of indemnity.

Lieut.-Colonel Marcus Lipton: It has always been held in this House that retrospective legislation is very bad. Surely the hon. Member is not suggesting that we should introduce that principle into this Bill?

Mr. Vane: Exceptions prove every rule. I feel that in this case, in the interests of the honour and good name of the right hon. Gentleman, we might perhaps make an exception.
With regard to Clause 1 and the main purpose of the Bill. I see that the power to lend appears to be limited to purposes of research. I wonder whether we should not be wise, if we are to give the power to lend for purposes of research, to widen this purpose somewhat. Whereas I can fully understand the need to be able to reciprocate services which other museums overseas have been able to render as, surely there must be many occasions when the curious objects to which the right hon. Gentleman opposite referred might be very much appreciated if they could be lent to local museums in this country or elsewhere. In other words, I wonder whether we should not be hampering the Trustees somewhat in their work if this power to lend were limited strictly to the narrow sense of the word "research."
I know that works of art and exhibits of this kind cannot always be expected to be lent on loan either in this country or overseas. They may be too fragile or too valuable or there may be other reasons against doing so. But surely we can rely on the discretion of the Trustees to refuse requests. Where those reasons do not apply, I should like to think that the Trustees have somewhat wider powers.
I was interested to hear the right hon. Gentleman give a long list of various objects which the Trustees have thought fit to borrow from museums overseas for various purposes. The list, if I heard aright, included a swallow, and bearing


in mind the weather last year, I should like to have thought that they would have been more generous in their demands, because, if they were trying to do us a good turn, surely they should remember that it takes more than one swallow to make a much-needed summer.

9.38 p.m.

Mr. Eric Fletcher: I think that the whole House will welcome the contribution which my right hon. Friend the Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede) made to the debate. When I heard the Financial Secretary opening the debate, I thought that he was treating it with a certain amount of rather condescending levity, and not with the seriousness which the Bill deserves, in view of the experience which my right hon. Friend has had as a member of the body of Trustees for a number of years.
The hon. Member for Westmorland (Mr. Vane) pointed out that from Clause 1 it appeared to him that the objects of the Bill were limited to lending for purposes of research. I also hope that they will be expanded during the Committee stage of the Bill. I notice that the Financial Secretary went rather further. He said that Clause I was needed in order that objects might be lent for purposes of research, identification and report. He did not say anything about exhibition.
It may or may not be desirable that objects of the natural history departments should be loaned abroad for purposes of exhibition. I have an open mind on that. I should not like it to be thought for the moment, from the way in which the Financial Secretary commended the Bill to the House, that this is merely a matter of concern to experts. It is also a matter of concern to the general public. As my right hon. Friend the Member for South Shields pointed out, the British Museum is a subject of national interest, and therefore British Museum Bills have always been Government-sponsored and have not been left to the initiative of private Members.
In view of what the Financial Secretary told us, I wonder how it is that we have been able to get on in the past as well as we have done without being able to give these reciprocal privileges to foreign museums. I entirely agree with my right hon. Friend that our national prestige and reputation make it essential that we

should not be in the position of privileged borrowers from other nations when we are not in a position, through lack of legislative powers, to give them reciprocal treatment.
I should like the Foreign Secretary to tell us at some later stage whether the trustees of all foreign museums are able to lend us objects out of their collections. My right hon. Friend listed a great number, including countries behind the Iron Curtain. One significant omission was the United States of America. Is there any inhibiting or restricting legislation in America which prevents, say, the Metropolitan Museum of New York, or any other big American museum, from lending objects to us? I mention that because one knows of other ways in which the United States is subject to hampering legislation. In view of the amount of research that takes place in the United States, I should like to know whether their position is the same as ours, and, if not, whether any comparable steps are being taken there.
The Government should, between now and a later stage of the Bill, consider the question of exhibition. Important as all research is, my experience is that there is an increasing popular interest in natural history. Have we found that because we cannot lend objects abroad for public exhibition, a handicap has been placed upon the Trustees of the British Museum in exhibiting some of the objects which they have borrowed for research?
I will take one example. One of the most important and certainly one of the most dramatic discoveries in the field of natural history during recent years—and I apologise if I mispronounce the name because I am not sure of its correct pronunciation—was the coelacanth, the large prehistoric fish thought to have been extinct for several million years and which, after a great deal of effort, was caught in the South African waters near Madagascar.
A great deal of public, as well as scientific and expert, interest has quite naturally been taken in the one or two specimens that have been obtained. They have been exhibited in Madagascar and in the Natural History Museum in France. I should have hoped that sooner or later they would have been available for a limited time on loan for exhibition here. Because of what they have read about


this creature a great many English people are particularly interested to see the specimens; and it has, of course, immense importance in the whole field of natural history.
Perhaps the Financial Secretary could tell us whether it will be possible to arrange with, I think it is the French Government, for a specimen to be sent over. If we wanted to send to other countries objects of interest, I should like to feel that we, under Clause 1, reciprocate by sending such objects; not only for examination by experts, but for popular exhibition.
Though I do not think it particularly noticeable in the case of the British Museum, there is a tendency—and I thought that the Financial Secretary rather countenanced it by what he said—on the part, not so much of the Trustees, but of curators of some museums, to regard their exhibits as rather specialised objects chiefly of concern to scholars and experts. It is our duty to correct that attitude. The Trustees of the British Museum must have regard not only to the experts but to the public, and must see that, wherever possible, objects are publicly exhibited and publicly available.
I do not think that there will be any criticism of the Bill on the kind of ground which my right hon. Friend the Member for South Shields mentioned and attempted to forestall. He referred to the recent activities of the Trustees and others in exposing what he referred to as the fake of the Piltdown skull.
Having, like many others, read the recent publication about that research, I feel that the Trustees and all those concerned—particularly Dr. Kenneth Oakley and Mr. Le Gros Clark—are to be congratulated on their objectivity in exposing, without any reservation at all, what had been thought to be a particularly British contribution to anthropology. They rendered a great contribution to science in using modern methods of fluorescent testing and so forth to expose that deception irrefutably.
I have nothing to say about Clause 2. Like many other hon. Members I imagine it to be either long overdue or else otiose. As has been said, the law must have been observed in the breach rather than the observance for a great many years past. I am happy to think that the opportunity has been taken to put beyond any doubt

the right of the Trustees—which they have probably exercised with impunity in the past—of destroying objects which have become
… infested by destructive organisms or, by reason of physical deterioration, have become useless. …

9.50 p.m.

Mr. Peter Smithers: When a British Museum Bill was introduced into this House in the first Session of this Parliament, I was one of three hon. Members—the others were two of my hon. Friends—who put their names to a Motion to oppose it, and I did so at that time purely because it contained no reference to loan powers.
I do not think we ought to legislate for the British Museum without having loan powers. I am, therefore, very glad indeed to welcome this Bill, because it takes at least some steps in the direction of giving loan powers to the Museum. I should like to add my plea to that of the hon. Member for Islington, East (Mr. E. Fletcher) that we should examine the possibility of extending the Bill to cover not only power to loan but power for exhibition. I should like to see this power extended beyond the Natural History Museum to the whole British Museum.
That is the only purpose of my intervention. I feel that we have not been able to give proper reciprocity, either in the field of science or in that of art, to the many valuable loans which we have frequently received in this country, and I think that we ought to be able to do so. I am delighted to find that the Bill now takes at least a first step in that direction.

9.52 p.m.

Lieut.-Colonel Marcus Lipton: When much of the legislation for which the present Government must be held responsible is forgotten, this Bill will stand to their credit. It is encouraging to observe that advantage has been taken during the concluding stages of this Parliament to introduce a useful Measure of this kind.
I am sorry that my right hon. Friend the Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede) is not present at the moment. When the Financial Secretary says that the Trustees of the British Museum have been anxious about the difficulties which the Bill seeks to remove, I must confess that I have not


noticed, either in Mr. Speaker or my right hon. Friend, any signs of undue anxiety in this or any other respect, but I accept what the Financial Secretary said, and, of course, the Trustees would desire to be forthcoming to the extent mentioned in this Bill.
I support what other hon. Members have said about widening the objects, if they need to be widened, beyond pure research, so that these objects can be loaned for purposes not purely confined to research. The Financial Secretary referred to other purposes for which loans might be made, such as comparison and identification, and it may be that the hon. Gentleman will be disposed to accept the Amendments at a later stage which will give effect to what I think could be reasonably interpreted as the wider intention to which he gave expression.
It came rather as a shock to me to hear the Financial Secretary say that there were objects in the world which the very skilled staff of the Natural History Museum might not know precisely, or be able to identify. I have always been under the impression that there was nothing in existence which could not be identified by one or other of the experts in the Natural History Museum, but it may be that by loaning objects for research the general corpus of knowledge will be increased.
It will add to the good repute of this country if we can reciprocate with other learned organisations in other parts of the world to the extent indicated under the Bill. It is fair to say that a system of mutual exchange ought to have been introduced long ago, but let us not be too critical and complain that the new move is tardy; let us do what we can to bring the Bill to the Statute Book as quickly as possible so that it will make what I am sure will be a useful contribution in the exchange of knowledge between this and as many other countries as are willing to contribute with us.

9.53 p.m.

Mr. Ronald Bell: I am sure that the whole House sympathises with the motives behind the Bill and listened with interest to the Financial Secretary's speech introducing it and the speech of the right hon. Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede), who supported him. I had no idea that the right hon. Gentleman had so many deteriorated

specimens behind him, many of whom he was unable to identify or dispose of.
I note that the object of the Bill is to grant additional powers to Trustees of the British Museum, but I think that those powers are bound to remain a little more limited than some of my hon. Friends had hoped, because the Long Title refers only to "lending" and "purposes of research." I doubt whether the Bill can be amended in the way they would like.
My interests are rather the reverse of theirs. I want to support the Bill, and probably will do so in the end, but I doubt whether it is right to confer additional powers upon these Trustees who, ever since I have been in the House, have failed to keep the Reading Room of the British Museum open after five o'clock in the evening—except, of course, for Mr. Speaker and—

Mr. Ede: The Trustees of the Museum desire to do so, but the Government which the hon. Member supports declines to give us the necessary funds to enable us to do so.

Mr. Bell: The Government of which the right hon. Gentleman was a member consistently refused, when I requested them, to provide the extra staff to enable the Trustees to do so, and I am merely carrying on a campaign which I have been carrying on ever since I returned to the House and which I introduce out of season or in season. I think it is rather out of season at the moment, but I am sure it is none the less appropriate.
Last Session we had another Bill dealing with the British Museum, which extended to books and on which it was possible to argue, without getting out of order, that it was not easy to watch the infestation and destruction of books unless the Reading Room were opened after five o'clock in the evening because this process of infestation and destruction continued during the night and the scholars and others who ought to have been there watching these documents and books were, unfortunately, turned out and were unable to watch these processes during the dark hours.
I appreciate that this Bill is narrower than that and refers only to the Natural History Museum, but I hope that my hon. Friend will realise how unfortunately circumscribed it is and that when he next introduces a Bill relating to the British


Museum it will include a direction to the Trustees to keep the Reading Room open after five o'clock and that he will use his undoubted influence with the Chancellor of the Exchequer to make sure that the necessary funds are made available to the Trustees for the purpose.

9.59 p.m.

Mr. H. Brooke: Perhaps I may have the leave of the House to reply to a few of the points which have been made. First, I want to thank the House for the unanimous reception it has given to the Bill and, in particular, to thank the right hon. Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede) for his support and for the extremely interesting justification, from his own knowledge, which he gave for the Trustees to the House. This appears to be one of the occasions when warm gratitude to the Government is expressed by hon. Gentlemen opposite as well as by hon. Members on this side of the House.
My hon. Friend the Member for Westmorland (Mr. Vane) raised the question of lending to local museums in this country and elsewhere, and other hon. Members took up that point. I assure them that the 1924 Act permits lending.
for public exhibition in any gallery or museum under the control of a public authority or university in Great Britain.
Any duplicates can be so lent or articles other than duplicates which. in the opinion of the Trustees,
can be temporarily removed … without injury to the interests of students or of the public.
I hope that that assurance will satisfy my hon. Friends.
Other hon. Members raised the question of the scope of the powers for lending abroad. It is true that the Bill is limited to lending for scientific purposes. So far as I am aware there is no serious scientific demand for exhibition abroad of the class of specimens which it is proposed to send abroad under the Bill for purposes of identification and research, and I would remind the House that the object of the Bill is the advancement of science.
I appreciate the point made by the hon. Member for Islington, East (Mr. E. Fletcher), that in certain circumstances it might be desirable to exhibit objects on loan abroad, but there are further considerations. Most of these articles do not travel easily and there is the risk of

damage or loss; a risk which is considerably increased if the article is to be put on exhibition, as compared with the circumstances envisaged in the Bill where the object is being sent abroad for examination by foreign scientists. That is how it comes about that the Bill is drafted as it is.
When the hon. Member for Islington, East, asks me whether the trustees of all foreign museums lend to this country, I am afraid I cannot speak with comprehensive knowledge of all foreign countries. In the case of the United States, however, which, I think, he has specially in mind, I assure him that American museums lend to us quite freely and that we are extremely grateful to them. The hon. Gentleman mentioned the coelacanth, which he pronounced "keelacanth." I am advised that it is correctly pronounced "seelacanth"—the first "c" is soft and the second "c" hard. He and other hon. Members might like to know that the coelacanth has already been on view in the Natural History Museum, which seldom falls short in meeting the interest of the public.
Finally, the hon. and gallant Member for Brixton (Lieut.-Colonel Lipton)—who also. I am glad to say, described the Bill as a valuable piece of legislation—questioned whether the staff at South Kensington was sufficiently capable to identify all the specimens which the collection contains. The staff we have there is a first-rate one, but possibly the hon. and gallant Gentleman does not realise—I do not blame him—that the number of recognised species of flowering plants alone is about 250,000.
There are over 1 million different species of animals, and in the face of numbers of that sort it is comprehensible that a limited staff cannot possibly possess the unlimited expert knowledge of every species and every variety that would be necessary if there were never to be a gap in the scientific coverage, so to speak, which the Natural History Museum staff can give.
It is because we want there to he no gaps as well as entire reciprocation with foreign scientists that the Bill is brought forward. We are bringing it forward so that the Natural History Museum may do its job in the future not only as excellently as it has done hitherto but even


better, and so that it may serve not only the public of this country but also the experts of the whole world.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read a Second time.

Committed to a Committee of the whole House.—[Mr. Studholme.]

Committee Tomorrow.

Orders of the Day — SUNDAY CINEMATOGRAPH ENTERTAINMENTS

Order made by the Secretary of State for the Home Department, extending Section 1 of the Sunday Entertainments Act, 1932, to the Urban District of Aireborough [Copy presented, 29th March],approved.—[Sir H. Lucas-Tooth.]

Order made by the Secretary of State for the Home Department, extending Section 1 of the Sunday Entertainments Act, 1932, to the Urban District of Carlton [copy presented, 29th March], approved.—[Sir H. Lucas-Tooth.]

Order made by the Secretary of State for the Home Department, extending Section 1 of the Sunday Entertainments Act, 1932, to the Urban District of Minehead [copy presented, 29th March], approved.—[Sir H. Lucas-Tooth.]

Order made by the Secretary of State for the Home Department, extending Section 1 of the Sunday Entertainments Act, 1932, to the Urban District of Swadlincote [copy presented, 29th March], approved.—[Sir H. Lucas-Tooth.]

Orders of the Day — HORTICULTURAL INDUSTRY

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Studholme.]

10.8 p.m.

Mr. Gerald Williams: I want to take this chance of putting in a plea for the horticulturists. They are of great value to this country, and at present they are going through what may be described as lean times, and certainly difficult times.
We have been reminded very recently, since we had the February Price Review before us not very long ago, that under the Agriculture Act, 1947, guaranteed

prices were given for the main sections of agricultural products. The guaranteed prices have worked very well. When costs have risen to agriculturists, the prices which they receive have risen in return to recoup them for any additional costs which they have had during the preceding year. However, hon. Members will remember that horticultural products are not covered by guaranteed prices under the 1947 Act.
Nevertheless, various Governments have urged the horticulturists to grow more, to plant, to plough, and to get ahead with the job of feeding the nation. As a result of their efforts, the horticulturists have had something of a raw deal. However, I must give the Government full credit for coming to the rescue about 18 months ago. The Government then provided some good, substantial tariffs which helped the horticultural industry from Cornwall to the East Coast. The Government kept their election pledge to do something to help the horticulturists, and the horticulturists have been grateful for what the Government did about 18 months ago. They recognise that this competition from abroad is sometimes unfair in that nations competing with us do not have the same standard of living that we have in this country.
I want to ask the Government if they are not prepared to help a little more. Eighteen months have gone by and the horticulturists' position has not improved. Wages have steadily gone up and other costs have increased, but there is still competition from abroad.
It is essential that horticulture should live for two reasons; we must have a thriving and flourishing horticultural industry in case of another war, and we must also have our horticultural industry thriving because we have the capital sunk in the land, we have the glasshouses, the cloches, the frames, the trees and the fruit bushes. They have all to be maintained and not allowed to go to rack and ruin, which may happen if horticulture is not helped a little more than it is at present.
More important is the fact that the Chancellor of the Exchequer is at present very worried about the import-export position—our balance of payments. It must be remembered that every ton we


can produce at home means that we can save buying a ton of food from abroad. What are the Government doing at the moment to help the horticulturists? I know that they have set up a committee of inquiry to study the marketing of horticultural produce, and I congratulate the Minister of Agriculture on having set up that committee.
It may well help, but I do not think that any thing very spectacular will come from it, and we shall have to wait for its report. However, we hope that it may make some useful suggestions and provide some ideas. In the meantime, industry is booming throughout the whole country, and agriculture is secure and on sound foundations and doing fairly well, to say the least of it.
What has happened to the horticultural industry? If we look back to 1947 and compare it with the present, we find that in 1947 coke delivered to horticulturists cost as little as 67s. a ton. In 1951 it cost 86s. 6d., in 1954 it cost as much as 113s. 6d. per ton. Wages have shown a similar sort of rise, from approximately £4 in 1947 to £6 10s.
What have wholesale market prices done? They have gone in the reverse direction. Taking the equivalent figure of 100 for 1937, by 1947 the figure was 302 and by 1951 it was back to 254, for 1953 it was 275. I have not the figure for 1954, but it was certainly no higher than 1953. So we can see that the prices of coke and wages, to take only two items, have considerably increased since 1947, but the prices of horticultural products are still below the prices which those products were fetching in that year.
There has been no compensation to the group concerned with horticultural products, as there would have been for the ordinary farmer growing products which come under the Agriculture Act. The trouble is that horticultural products, as no doubt the Joint Parliamentary Secretary will tell us, do not lend themselves to a system of guaranteed prices. That may be true, but what can the Government do?
Can the Government give us more subsidies for fertilisers? Can they subsidise coke? They have been generous enough to subsidise fertilisers still further only a short time ago, but if they intend to do more for horticulturists, they will have to do something over the whole range of

agriculture. However, coke is used more in horticulture than by the ordinary farmer, and the Government may well feel disposed to subsidise coke.
There is one way in which the Government really can help, but it will take a great effort by the Minister of Agriculture, who must tackle the Chancellor of the Exchequer to try to prevail upon him to reduce that iniquitous petrol tax of 2s. 6d. a gallon from which we now suffer. Horticulturists, unlike the farmers who use larger tractors, almost always use petrol for their small machines. If some relief by way of a reduction of the duty on petrol could be given, that would help the horticulturists to a considerable extent.
Something may well be done in the Budget to lower the tax on petrol all round, but I ask the Minister of Agriculture whether he will try to prevail upon the Chancellor to take off the tax entirely for petrol used in this industry. It has been done before and it could be done again. On the last occasion the concession did not last for long but the system worked satisfactorily when it was tried.
If it was done we should immediately see relief and encouragement given to the grower of horticultural products. Possibly there would be a reduction in the price because of the more favourable conditions for the growing of these products. It would encourage mechanisation, efficiency and production. There is no reason why we should not look after our own horticulturists, especially when we remember that nearly all our competitors get tax-free petrol—not only those in Europe but also those in Canada and the United States.
What would it cost if the Chancellor removed the tax? From the estimates which I have been given, 40 million gallons of petrol are used in the industry every year. That is merely a guess, but it may be nearly correct. If it is correct, it would mean that there would be a loss to the Revenue of about £5 million. In his present fortunate position, the Chancellor of the Exchequer can well afford to give away £5 million, and this step would put the horticulturist back on his feet.
Incidentally, such an action would also help agriculture. It is far more efficient to run tractors on petrol rather than on


oil. Many farmers have turned from petrol to oil simply to avoid taxation. The result is that their tractors are often left running all through the lunch hour, because they take a long time to warm up. They are not nearly so economic as when they are run on petrol. If the tax was taken off, I can imagine that the ordinary farmer would return to the petrol-driven tractor, which is a much more economic machine, and the result would be of benefit to the country as a whole.
The Joint Parliamentary Secretary may well say that it is administratively difficult to give tax-free petrol to the horticulturist, but it is only a matter of them putting in returns and making a claim for petrol used. There is no reason why unreasonable advantage should be taken of such a system. A similar system is operated already for inshore fishing vessels. It is easy to check approximately the amount of petrol which should be used on a smallholding. This is done in New Zealand, Canada and the United States.
I make a serious appeal to the Joint Parliamentary Secretary. I know that it does not lie in his hands to take off the tax, but it is his duty to protect the horticultural industry, and he and the Minister of Agriculture could have a talk with the Chancellor to see if he can help. This would be the best way in which to help the industry. I hope that my words will not be lost, and that the Joint Parliamentary Secretary will see the Chancellor without fail within a short time.

10.19 p.m.

Mr. Julian Snow: The House is indebted to the hon. Member for Tonbridge (Mr. G. Williams) for raising this subject, for one fact is obvious and that is that successive Governments have failed to cope with the problem of the British horticultural industry. However, I am very doubtful whether the plea which he has made is of special reference to the costs of production of the individual horticulturist. I do not know where the hon. Gentleman got the information that most of the competitors of the British grower enjoy tax-free fuel. That is certainly not true of Holland and Belgium.

Mr. G. Williams: Denmark.

Mr. Snow: It may well be true of Denmark, but it is not true of those two countries, which are major exporters of horticultural produce.
I think that we in this country have failed to encourage the co-operative effort which is certainly apparent in Denmark and Belgium, if not in France. A reduction in the cost of collection, grading and packing would prove a substantial factor in reducing the overall cost. I hope that the Minister will comment on that point, because I think that we are backward in encouraging the sort of co-operative effort which may help to solve some of the difficulties facing our horticulturists.
The hon. Member for Tonbridge referred to the cost of fuel, and mentioned coke. I know of horticulturists who are not so much bothered about the cost of coke as by the fact that they cannot get any. I should have thought that the provision and availability of this fuel was a matter about which the Ministry of Agriculture would have made better arrangements with the Ministry of Fuel and Power before the season began. I do not wish to take up more of the Minister's time, but I would ask him to consider encouraging co-operative production.

10.22 p.m.

Mr. G. R. Howard: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Tonbridge (Mr. G. Williams) on raising this matter, which is of great interest to West Cornwall. It is said that tariffs must have a fair trial, but if they have to have a fair trial I beg the Government not to commit us too far in advance with any fresh measures. I appreciate that at the moment it is all in the air, and that, in due course, representations will be made which will be carefully considered by my right hon. Friend, and by the Board of Trade.
I would ask for an assurance on three points. First, that the Minister will help the industry as much as possible with the troubles which horticulturists are experiencing from exports. Secondly, that he will help horticulturists about transport matters; assist in regard to railway freight rates, and ensure that consignments of horticultural produce reach the market at the right time. Thirdly, that he will assist in devising new methods of producing non-returnable boxes.
The attractive presentation of horticultural produce is a help in the selling of that produce. It is often said that the produce from abroad, from Italy and France, is more attractively presented, and that our horticulturists should follow that example.

10.23 p.m.

Mr. Douglas Marshall: We know that this is a difficult subject, but, at the same time, this means that we appreciate the difficulties facing our horticulturists. I wish to reinforce the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for St. Ives (Mr. G. R. Howard) about an inquiry into the possibility of making nonreturnable crates and boxes. That would, indeed, be a help to the industry. It needs a non-returnable crate, priced at 1 s. 6d. a crate. I hope that any sort of negotiations between the Ministry of Transport and the horticultural industry will take into consideration the geographical difference between the areas in which horticulture is produced.
The horticultural industry is, and must be, based on quality. Provided that quality against quality is equal it is only reasonable to ensure, both from the point of view of defence and of the health of our own country, that the quality of horticultural produce in this country should equal that from abroad. While the quality of the home produce may equal that coming from abroad, there will not be fair competition if our horticultural industry is handicapped by a higher standard of wage rates, higher transport rates and a higher cost of returnable crates. I feel sure that the Minister would be the first to agree that unless there is flexibility within G.A.T.T. to safeguard against that form of competition by a tariff arrangement, horticulture has a very poor future. I feel equally sure that the Minister does not wish that position to arise.

10.25 p.m.

The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture and Fisheries (Mr. G. R. H. Nugent): I should like to begin by congratulating my hon. Friend the Member for Tonbridge (Mr. G. Williams) on his good fortune in securing the Adjournment tonight on this important subject of our horticultural industry. Before I reply to the points that he raised, I should like to assure my hon.
Friends the Members for St. Ives (Mr. G. R. Howard) and for Bodmin (Mr. D. Marshall) that the points they have mentioned are already very much in the mind of my right hon. Friend the Minister, who has already heard them personally. We are already studying in the Department what we can do to meet them.
I understand how deeply my hon. Friends feel in this matter, and how very worried many of the small growers are in Cornwall. The fact is that some parts of England have had two years of singular difficulty. Nineteen fifty-three was a year of exceptional bounty, and a bounteous year for growing is often an embarrassment to the professional grower because prices are very low. The next year was one of exceptional difficulty in growing, and of shortage. Normally, horticultural growers who are in the business professionally expect to do well in a year of difficult growing, because prices are high and the expert is able to continue to produce and, therfore, to make a good living.
Unfortunately, however, during last season—1954—the western half of the country had a tremendously heavy rainfall and a most difficult growing season. Although the eastern part of England did not have too bad a time and still continued to produce, there is no doubt whatever that the West, and especially the far West, had a most difficult time. Growers lost their crops time after time and had to re-sow. They had all the expense and difficulty, but very little to show at the end of it.
I express my deepest sympathies about the difficulties which I know growers have had, and I appreciate what my hon. Friends the Members for St. Ives and for Bodmin have said. Growers have been in real difficulties, and we are doing what we can to help them on those three points.
This industry, to which my hon. Friend the Member for Tonbridge referred, has had particular difficulties and has felt particularly hardly its problem of meeting increased costs with no immediate relief from the Government in the form of increased price guarantees which the rest of agriculture gets. I sympathise with the plea which my hon. Friend has made tonight to see whether we can do something to help.
It is, of course, an industry with a large number of small growers. Some 75 per cent. of the total number of growers are reckoned to be people with less than 20 acres. There is a total of about 70,000 holdings interested in horticulture. About half of them are almost entirely horticultural, and nearly another quarter are mainly horticultural. The picture is of an industry with a large number of small growers, about 45 per cent. of whom are interested in vegetable growing. They supply the greater part—about 75 to 80 per cent.—of the vegetable needs of this country, the remainder being filled by imports.
For a great part of our vegetables, we are entirely dependent upon home production. The imported section is mainly in respect of tomatoes and in dry bulb onions and in broccoli, which comes in at this time of year from Western European countries to supplement the home supply.
We produce about 45 per cent. by weight of the fruit we require, and about 55 per cent. by weight is imported. That includes a very large quantity of citrus fruits and bananas, amounting altogether to about two-thirds of the total import. Except for apples and pears, we do not have much direct competition from imported fruit. About 15 or 20 per cent. of the apples are imported, and a little over half the pears. But, of course, there is a great deal of indirect competition in fruit, because naturally an orange or a banana may be preferred to an apple from time to time. In fruit production, therefore, there is a serious element of competition from imports.
As for flowers, we produce the greater part of our needs. It is an industry worth about £20 million per annum, and about £1 million worth of flowers are imported. A summary of the picture is that we produce the greater part of our needs for vegetables and flowers, and something under half of what we need of fruit.
We have felt that our general policy as a Government must be to ensure that there is a sufficient imported supply to supplement the home production to ensure that consumers in this country have enough and the choice of what they wish to have. At the same time, we feel that we should assure the home producer first place in our own market. To that end,

as my hon. Friends have acknowledged, we did revise the tariff about 15 months ago, first for fruit and vegetables, and for a further range about a year ago, including cut flowers. I think that the revision was generally regarded as fair at the time. It increased the tariff incidence on specific tariffs by about twice the original rate, and on nursery stocks by about 2½ times.
There were certain bound items, notably apples and pears, on which no revision was made but on which there are quantitative regulations. The general principle with regard to revision is that we are agreeable in principle to revision when a case is made out, but naturally there must be sufficient time to gain experience, and the figures of imports and the general position must be such that it has substantiated such a case.
I would agree that on the bound items there is a rather different case from that of the items which are not bound. Naturally, it is up to the producers to bring forward a case for revision when they think that the facts justify it, and we as a Government will be willing to consider such a case sympathetically and objectively whenever it is brought before us.
In the meantime, we do what we can to help the industry, and although I cannot say anything to my hon. Friend the Member for Tonbridge tonight on the question of a rebate in petrol duty—it is entirely in the hands of the Chancellor. and my hon. Friend will not be surprised if I tell him that at this time of the year the Chancellor is very discreet about his intentions in such matters—I am sure that my right hon. Friend will give this matter the most careful and sympathetic consideration.
In the meantime, we are able to do something to help the industry, in particular with production grants which are assessed at a value of about £3 million a year to the horticultural industry. In the lifetime of this Government we restored the fertiliser subsidy, which has a particular value to horticulture. We also restored the ploughing subsidy, which has some value to horticulture, and particularly to the fruit grower. In those ways we have been able to do something to help, and very glad I am that we have.
We have between 30 and 40 research institutes behind the industry, and through our advisory services we give a range of advice upon technical matters connected


with growing. I would mention particularly to the hon. Member for Lichfield and Tamworth (Mr. Snow) that a good deal of work has been done both upon marketing research and in the advisory field in the last few years. During the last year we have had a particularly helpful development, called the grade assessment scheme, by which our market officers go into the markets, inspect the consignments of different growers, and then send them confidential reports. They have already sent out about 4,000 reports, unasked for but almost invariably welcomed, giving an objective review of what the stock in question was like.
This is proving to be a most valuable service. It was started initially with United States funds, and it is having a good influence in helping growers to grade up their presentation in a fashion which will meet the demands of the market and help them to get better prices. I have not time to enumerate the various methods which we are using to assist marketing, but we do all we can to encourage co-operation. Some growers are willing to co-operate and some are not. The system does not go so far here as it does in Denmark, I agree, but among progressive growers there has been

a real advance in presentation, notably in Kent. There the growers have proved most co-operative in instituting improved methods of marketing.
The high road to getting better prices for themselves and meeting the consumer demand more adequately is by trying to put on standard grades, and high-grade stuff, and studying the possibilities of pre-packaging, all of which will attract the customers and the multiples which are anxious to serve a large body of our housewives. The progressive horticulturists are certainly taking advantage of these techniques.
This industry continually faces big risks in growing and marketing. That is its tradition. We, as a Government, have done quite a bit to help it, and we shall be glad to do more if we can see ways in which we can help it further.

The Question haying been proposed after Ten o'clock and the debate having continued for half an hour, Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.

Adjourned at twenty-two minutes to Eleven o'clock.